Police Release Bodycam Footage Of 7 Year Old Getting Pepper-Sprayed During Seattle Riot, Shows Parents Used As Human Shield

In the case of the child pepper sprayed in May, footage of the aftermath shows the then 7-year-old boy screaming in agony as bystanders pour milk into his eyes to relieve the pain. The video sparked an immense outcry, and was the impetus behind 13,000 complaints lodged against the Seattle Police Department. Most of them were not submitted by eye witnesses.

After reviewing the footage and about nine videos from body-worn cameras, the Office of Police Accountability determined the officer in question had not targeted the child. Rather, the officer was aiming at a woman pulling on another officer's baton just as the boy and his father moved in their direction, said agency director Andrew Myerberg.

"From our perspective, I think what the video shows is that there's an incredibly unfortunate result in that this child has been affected by pepper spray," he said. "So regardless of the findings, this child is a victim."

Myerberg added that he and his team determined that the pepper spraying officer's use of force "was consistent with policy and the child being affected was really not a foreseeable result of those actions."

He also reiterated that officer Jared Campbell was not the officer in pepper spray incident.

The father of the child, Mando Avery, said in June that he had been standing around when he felt something hit his face. But it didn't dawn on him that it was pepper spray until he heard his now 8-year-old son screaming.

"I looked down and that's when I felt it in my eyes. But I could see it all over my son," Avery said.

Avery opted not to participate in the Office of Police Accountability's investigation. Civil rights attorney David Owens, who is representing Avery's family, issued a written statement on their behalf.

"We are deeply disappointed, but not surprised, by the result reached by the OPA," the statement reads. "Today, they have confirmed that it is the Seattle Police Department’s position that the use of pepper spray in an intentional and reckless manner that it would strike an innocent child exercising their First Amendment rights is 'within policy.'"

The statement goes on to say that "no police officers attempted to render aid to the child making any apology tough to accept."

The Office of Police Accountability's findings in the case, however, state that "an unidentified officer stepped forward and called out for the Child to be brought over for medical assistance" and that "demonstrators then began accusing that officer of pepper spraying the child."

Owens also called attention to the fact that the no officers involved in the case have been publicly named, stating that "this undermines the claims of objectivity and transparency that the city purports to value."

Myerberg pointed to recommendations the Office of Police Accountability made that the Seattle Police Department revise its crowd control policy, which he published in August.

"I think it's abundantly clear through the recommendations that we had issued as part of the legislation passed by the [City] Council that there are significant flaws in the way that SPD has approached these protests," he said.

Myerberg also underscored that the Office of Police Accountability's role isn't to make value judgments when it comes to investigating police misconduct. Instead, the office is tasked with determining whether or not officers have violated department policy.