ADMINISTRACIÓN DE PERSONAL, SITUACIONES ADMINISTRATIVAS

Creating a link between social identity and how a crowd develops into a group during a sporting event has proven challenging due to the limited information that specifically relates to this social behavior. Police after action reports (AAR) and board of inquiry (BOI) investigations used in this study focus mainly on police tactics and strategies. The newspaper articles from 1997 offer some evidence as to how groups bond, even without obvious reasons. After the University of Arizona 1997 championship game, in an article titled, “Anyone Not on 4th Ave. Last Night?,” the author commented, “I’ve never felt like I had 30,000 family members, but last night on Fourth Avenue it was like one big family party. I’ve never given more high-fives and hugs to people that I have never met.”422 _{The data provided by the 2001 BOI gave the best account of how the} crowd developed, including a timelines of events. The video evidence used in the BOI provided a visual account; however, the video was not marked in a way to compare it to the BOI report. The 2014 BOI also used video evidence; however, the details in the narrative did not provide the same level detail about the crowd as 2001. The video in both cases provided excellent detail of how the crowd split into a centralized group in the middle of the street, and how this group reacted to the police. Details leading up to this point were less obvious unfortunately.

The beginnings of social identity are obvious in all four events, as evidenced by similar behavior in each. The informal membership begins with the fans coming to a centralized location (bar district), wearing common colors, and showing spirit for their team through common celebratory behaviors. As the intensity of each game increases, the crowd energy increases. This behavior was captured in newspaper clips from the 1997 event when it described some fan’s extreme emotions and over-exaggerated levels of excitement.423 _{This was also seen in the 2001 BOI evidence videotape when chants of “U}

422 _{Degel, “Anyone Not on 4th Ave. Last Night?”}

of A” could be heard.424 _{As the game continued, students began giving high-fives to} strangers and the chants turn negative toward the opposing team. At the end of the game in each event, the students exited the bars and met in the middle of the street to celebrate. Again, this celebration was well documented in 2001 and 2014 with students cheering and chanting together. In both situations, the students also turned this into derogatory chants against the opposing team. At this point, there appears to be evidence of an in-group (students) and an out-group (opposing team). Additionally, the presence of the police also provides a potential out-group, as evident by individuals challenging officers prior to the start of the game. For example, the board of inquiry for the 2014 riots at the University of Arizona described how the police standing nearby in helmets and face shields, and the use of police motorcycles with lights and sirens “appeared to agitate the crowd” of over 1000 students.425

The 2001 and 2014 BOIs also document periods of milling behaviors, where there is a lull in the activity and the students can be seen in smaller groups talking among themselves and watching other smaller groups or the main group in the middle of the street. Video of the 2001 University of Arizona sports riot showed large periods of milling, as small groups converged shortly after the game ended.426 _{Police reported that} the crowd was “settling down” due to a lack of action.427 _{Following the 2015 University} of Arizona Elite 8 loss to Wisconsin, students centralized in the middle of the street following the game. After a period of chanting, the tone quieted as students walked around, asking each other if they thought a riot would occur this year as it had in previous years.428 _{When a group fails to retain positive distinction, it weakens the group social} identity, as it did in 2015. Even so, this behavior may continue until individuals within the main group present the first honor challenge.

424 _{Miranda, 2001 NCAA Championship Deployment, video evidence: Schur, 6:00.}

425 _{Allen, Leavitt, and Roberts, Board of Inquiry, 2014 NCAA Championship Deployment, 11.} 426 _{Miranda, 2001 NCAA Championship Deployment, video evidence, Skeenes, 2.}

427 _{Ibid., 15–16.}

Honor challenges came in various behavioral traits but follow a pattern within each year. The 1997 AAR described students committing vandalism, projectiles thrown at officers, cars flipped, and fires set. Unfortunately, in 1997, the police were surprised of the escalation and did not appear to capture data as the students first centralized in the streets. The evidence related to the 2001 riot offered a much better description, since the officers were there for the entire time and witnessed the events. In 2001, students began with fireworks and mosh pit dancing, progressed to shouldering and flashing, and ended with vandalism, throwing projectiles at officers, flipping cars, and setting fires. A more obvious example occurred when a group of University of Arizona students sat in the middle of the street blocking the officers’ attempts to get to the fires burning nearby.429 In 2014, the students again began with fireworks, but the police quickly organized, possibly eliminating the next few stages of challenges. Once confronted by the police, the students quickly escalated to committing vandalism and throwing projectiles at officers. As the police moved in to clear the streets, in the 1997, 2001, and 2014 incidents, there were also shared reports of individuals stepping in front of the rest of the group to passively challenge officers in what appeared to be an effort to excite the group. The escalation of the group in each case followed a similar pattern—with the exception of 2015. With each challenge to the officers, the center of the group united, as evidenced by cheers and taunting.

Through the process of stereotyping crowds, generally from prior knowledge, where police make the assumptions that crowds are groups and groups are dangerous.430 As a result, police officers react per their training and treat these groups as threats. Tactical training is based on worst-case scenarios, and sets the precedent for officers to always be prepared for any threat. For example, although only a fraction of traffic stops results in violence against the officer, officers are trained to treat every driver as a threat until the contact ends. To police officers, crowds represent a potential threat, since its unpredictability may quickly turn into an overwhelming situation. This is evident when examining policing behavior at large events. Video taken by police during the 2001 riots

429 _{Miranda, 2001 NCAA Championship Deployment, 17–18.} 430 _{Gorringe, and Rosie, “It’s a Long Way to Auchterarder.”}

showed police officers mingling within the crowd up until the end of the game. As the crowd energized in the streets, the police began to move toward the surrounding sidewalks. Eventually, the video showed the police officers lined up in groups with their backs against the building walls.431 _{There were no lesson plans in the academy training} the officers to move from the center of the crowd. Simple officer safety principles guided them into this action to prevent someone from approaching their blindside; however, the tactic itself results in a separation of the police from the crowd and ultimately increases anonymity of the individuals within the group.

The videos from the various BOIs show how students launched projectiles at the officers from behind of the group, using anonymity as a shield. It also explained how mosh pits and fights occurred in the middle of the central group, away from the view of the police. Anonymity might not carry the literal meeting of “made or done by someone unknown,”432 _{since it has been established that people tend to remain in smaller groups} within the larger group.433 _{Furthermore, the tendency for students to climb on shoulders,} poles, and lights places them in full view of the group and the police. This suggests that anonymity in this situation may imply a lower probability of being arrested.