Suggested Tactics For Dealing With Police Harassment Of Protesters

[DistressedAmerican]

As many of you know I have spent much of the past several days pulling together photos, video, and written accounts of police actions during the recent POTUS visit to New Jersey.

The full information can be found at:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

There is video of the NJ arrests posted as well at:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/westfieldvideo/WestfieldArrest.avi


Several intimidation tactics are being employed at these events. It is best to be prepared in advance for what you might see out there.

The tactics they are employing are fairly simple and should also be fairly simple to defeat.

So far we have seen that as the New Jersey event was letting out, the police decided to disperse the crowd of (perfectly legal) protesters. They began by grabbing and arresting several people from the crowd, none of whom had in any way broken the law. These arrests were them used to threaten the others that if they did not disperse they would also be arrested. In the New Jersey case the tactic worked fairly well. They arrested 9 and dispersed the protesters in minutes.

Here's what I suggest. First, take a camera. It is a lot easier to defend people who are charged with video or photos than just a story. Second, if arrests begin, it is important for the crowd NOT TO DISPERSE. I think it would be far more effective for everyone to just sit right down there and if need be get arrested. It is a lot harder for the MSM to ignore the arrests of 150 protesters than it is to ignore 9.

Fill their local jails and hold a jail cell rally. It worked for MLK!

I understand that this takes a commitment. It will most likely result in disorderly conduct charges, fines and a Secret Service file. However, if we allow these folks to drive us off when we are well within out legal rights, THEN THEY WIN!

Remember we are still working on getting this girl's charges dropped:


We have power if we take the streets and cover each other's backs!
BE CIVIL BUT, BE DISOBEDIENT!

[FloridaPat]

1. After having been involved in the protests in the 60's and 70's, I

find it amazing that we have not come a long way. THe mentality of The Man is the same as it has been for most of the last 200 years. Citizens are enemies to be dealt with and the politicans are gods. We need a real government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Those were nice words 200+ years ago, but maybe it's time to give them meaning. But I don't see a lot of US citizens even caring. I think we've lost out country.

[DistressedAmerican]

2. Franklyu, I Do Not Get It. Why Are We So Weak?

I have even seem a lot of DUers suggesting people AVOID going to protests because the security will be oppressive and you won't get close to George. That just cededs the ground to the enemy without a fight. Not my style, as you can probably tell.

If you can't count on DUers doing their part, you certainly can't expect anyone else to do so.

We need cameras and education to beat this crap!

[DistressedAmerican]

3. Self Kicking.

I think this is importnant info with the ongoing SS tour and the upcoming March 19 protests:



Please go and document. Do not give up your ground.

[frictionlessO]

4. Very important! This is what the enemy and its minions are up to.

Cameras are weapons of knowledge these days.

Do not be disuaded by DU'ers who are encouraging people not to protest. They are wrong pure plain and simple... that and probably scared. Fear does not an appropriate response make.

The Anti-Neocon battle is fully joined this March 19.

[BeFree]

7. 3/19/05

You guys are encouraging!

Protest is a sacred right and one which shall never be taken away no matter how hard they try. It can only be given away.

[TWiley]

5. We took camera's

and several Democrat Lawyers were milling around to be on the spot if any brutality occoured. They did a pretty good job. They missed a couple older women who were thrown to the ground by the bushies. One had a pass to get in the gate and was knocked down when she put her Kerry button on after getting inside.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. Where was that at?

You just reminded me that we could stand to gather some Legal Aid info into one thread.

Does anyone have good links for legal aid groups assisting protesters?

I know there are several out there. Met a bunch at the RNC protests in the Apple. Lets get this info togehter and I;ll add it in with my coverage/encouragement on the site.

[G_j]

8. The National Lawyers Guild

has supplied legal observers for all the larger demonstrations.
They can also answer questions about the rights of protesters.
http://www.nlg.org/

the ACLU can also be helpful

[DistressedAmerican]

9. Thanks for that info.

May prove quite useful.

[TWiley]

50. The ACLU was represented at the first protest I went to as well.

They probably had a lawyer or two there also. I did not even think of it. There easily was a dozen groups there to protest the evil shrub, some I never heard of before.

[TWiley]

29. This was in Michigan

The lawyers were there at the request of our local Democratic party. There were several thousand protestors outside, and about 10 thousand supporters inside.

3 people did get arrested here, but they tried to walk out in front of georgies limo. Evidently, it is against the law to attempt to stop his car.

I was in another protest in NYC, and those butt-holes, the protest-warriors, were there. 3 folks supporting the war and about 20 thousand demonstrating against it. The cops were roughing people up if they got on the sidewalks. Everyone had to stay in the cattle-pens that were set up on Broadway Ave.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. That is a really interesting report. Thanks for getting back to me.

There certainly is a well developed set of police tactics being used to break up these demonstrations. As the anti-war movement grows we will see more and more of this.

Legal support is KEY info to get together. Tomorrow I mine the growing number of posts for various info that can be condensed. The tactics will likely depend on the size of the crowd, etc. So, it is good to start the compilation of the similarities and differences now.

Thanks again.

[shadowknows69]

46. I'm in upstate NY looking for a ride

to albany, syracuse, NYC or the big game right in DC. I have a monster dv camera with up to 100x zoom and it's fired up and ready to document.

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. As long as you are both *peaceful and civil*, fine.

As a former deputy, I have no problem with letting the courts sort it out, but for your own sake, be absolutely peaceful; do not resist arrest in any but a passive way.

[DistressedAmerican]

11. I have asked the other self identified law inforcement DUer

to give me an opinion on this video from the NJ protests. I still haven't heard bakc from him/her/

Any way you could give me an opinion on whether these officers on this video were out of line? I'd really appreciate it.

http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/westfieldvideo/WestfieldArrest.avi

It appears on the tape and from the accounts form wittnesses that these cops singeled at least two peaceful protesters out for arrest (I assume to intimidate the rest into leaving, which they did).

As to courts sorting things out. I have not trusted that route since I was 16 and a cop testified against me on a speeding ticket (I was overheating and driving 20 UNDER at the time limping to the next exit). It was pure unadulterated crap. Needless to say the judge beleived him over me and stuck me with a totally bogus fine. I would not trust blindly in the legal system to work.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Sure, let me watch it.

I'l give you my candid opinion.

:hi:

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. OK, here's what I saw.

Let me add my caveat up front: I can only see from the videographer's position, and there are some things I would have liked to have been able to see that I couldn't, so with that in mind, here goes:

I have to assume that the kid with the mohawk stepped over 'the line' that he'd been told not to, and was arrested for doing so. The lady who was verbally aggressive should have shut her mouth--- the street is not a courtroom, and why the young man was arrested was not, strictly speaking, any of her business. I couldn't see what the young lady who was arrested was arrested for, so I can't comment on that. Perhaps you could fill in some details for me?

:)

[frictionlessO]

14. why should she have shut her mouth?

Was she advocating violence? Was she yelling to step over the line?


Im having to wait till I get home to see the video as it keps messing up my computer with no sound here at work.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Want an honest answer to your question?

She was doing nothing but attempting to escalate the situation and, as I wrote previously, it was none of her G** damned business, since the street is not a courtroom and she isn't a presiding judge.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. It is if you can not TRUST the police and courts!

She was not escalating anything. The situation was just fine until the police began abusing their authority and intimidating peaceful protesters. I'm glad you have such faith in the courts. Too bad, innicent people are convicted regularly. Courts are not some magical arbitor of justice. They are fallable. That is why I suggest documenting. Your story will not be believed iuf a cop testifies against you. Maybe theoretically but not in practice.

[frictionlessO]

32. Thats your opinion,

which will suffice for an honest answer.

I just didnt know that protesters are now suppose to keep their Goddamn mouths shut when one of their own is possibly having their rights violated.

Sorry if thats snarky, but you're really coming off as if you're against our people, our protesters. Which to me is as sad as those that talk shit about soldiers. I hope that you really are for the progressive cause and thusly the protests that are fighting for those causes.

Why tear down our own when the other side will do a better job of it for you??? I guess thats all Im asking here....

[DistressedAmerican]

19. She was not advocating violence or anything like that.

She began by repeatedly asking the cops why these folks were being arrested. The just reposnd with tanunts of "Step over the line! Step over the line!". Following this the crowd (her included) began chanting "Shame On You!" at the police who were conducting the arrest.

Nothing illegal, nothing out of line. I'd call that expression of free speech myself. To bad some seem to think voicing dissent with police action is the sole domain of the courts. They do a very poor job!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. On the legal end, most states penal codes make it unlawful to interfere

with an officer making an arrest. Just sayin'.

[countryjake]

59. A cop can bust you just for asking...

"What's going on?", if they're taking some action, against another person or just moving a crowd.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. Thanks for the feedback. Here's Emily's Story:

My sister spoke on the phone to the father of Emily Colvin who is now at home after several hours detained and issuance of a summons for disorderly conduct. Her story is as follows (it conflicts with some of the earlier info and suggests more out of line conduct by the police than previously thought):

According to Emily, She at no time crossed the barricade. She was turned away from the front and was approached by someone coming out of the "town hall meeting". That person began yelling insults and obscenities at the crowd of protesters. Emily turned around and stretched out her arms to reveal the banner she was carrying.

At that moment she reports hearing one of the offers say "That's it. She's out of here." She was immediately grabbed by several officers who dragged her across the barricade, slammed her up against a Westfield municipal police car and cuffed. She reports being extremely confused as to why she was being grabbed as she didn't feel that she was acting any different that those around her. My sister, says that is clear from her expression in the video she shot.

She was taken and booked at the Westfield police station and held in hand cuffs for several hours. A reporter from New York's WNYC, a local NPR affiliate met up with the family when they arrived to get Emily out. In total 9 were arrested.
=====================================
Every account I have heard from people who saw the events is very similar to her account. I see no evidence that the kid with the Mohawk crossed the line. What I see is a cop approaching him and pulling him out of the line (although as you say is could be clearer). My sister (the woman yelling) was standing right next to him and reports that he DID NOT cross the line.

As far as my sister shutting up, I could not disagree more. When you see injustice being done you should make noise. If more of us did. Less abuses would take place.

I still think video taping events is your best legal defense. As noted however, even if the charges are dropped you get yourself a Secret Service file. The courts won't be fixing that.

[shadowknows69]

58. exactly, the street is not a courtroom

so as American citizens we should be able to say whatever we want short of inciting violence without fear of retribution.

[TryingToWarnYou]

37. Im another "self identified" LE DU'r

The video shows nothing unfortunately because the camera angle/crop is such that you:

1. dont see what the officer did, but 'something' happened.

2. you dont see what the protestor might have done.

3. at approximately 00:49 - 00:52 the video is edited and a single loop of the girl is played again. This leads me to believe that something might have been removed from the video for whatever reason. Edited video loses all credibility.

Find another copy of the tape where its shot to show what the interaction between the officer and the protestor was and it will be better able to identify what, if anything, was wrong.

Just my .02

[me b zola]

18. I was reading your thread real time during the NJ protest

I could not agree more with you. I believe that we need to employ the tactics of Dr.King of peaceful civil disobedience. They mean to discourage dissent with their bullying tactics, as they did with the Civil Rights activists of the 60's. We cannot allow them to intimidate us, there is too much at stake.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

[DistressedAmerican]

20. The Time Has Come To Take Control Of The Streets!

[jdots]

21. Notice who gets the press...........

The attention getters get the photo op and that is working against us.We need numbers now more than ever because if 500,000 show up the media calls it 50,000. Demonstating isn't easy and comfortable but it has to be done.Bring cameras,recorders,have your papers together and see you in the streets.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. If we make them arrest us all. It will be much harder for the media

to ignore us. I know being willing to go to jail is a big steo for some folks. As for me, I am not concerned. Let them arrest me. I'll fight is with the video I take!

When the going gets tough, the tough oppoisition gets going!

[Padraig18]

23. As someone who was actually detained during an IWR protest...

I was 'detained' during an IWR protest at the Civic Center complex in Chicago (City Hall), but was ultimately not arrested. Did I break the law? Yes. Did the cops 'overreact' by handcuffing me? Nope. If you're going to be civilly disobedient (and I was), then at least have the personal integrity to acknowledge that you're breaking the law, because that's just the way it has to be some times.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. I am with you. You should be willing to pay the price IF YOU DO it.

There is no evidence that the people arrested in Jersey violated ANY law. All indications are that the police singled out folks in the crowd and dragged them out. In which case you should not be expected to pay the price.

There is a difference between civil disobedience and lawful protest. These people appear to have been well within their legal rights. That's my issue.

Meanwhile, I am encouraging civili disobedience. Sometime mass arrests are the worst thing these thugs can try. It only works if we all stick together though.

BWT - Way to hit the streets. We need more like you. I'll see you in the cell!

[frictionlessO]

25. so you think she deserved to be arrested?

She didnt step over the line Pad, she didnt break a law.

As someone whose had his head kicked a few times by some cops and has been arrested for not doing a damn thing other than having long hair that I politely told a cop who inquired quite rudely that he couldn't chop off. I can honestly say that cops have as much corruption going on as the media, the administration or any other agency you want to through in there.

Why do you think the girl lied Paddy? Why question her personal integrity but not the cops?

Just because you broke the law at a protest and got rightfully arrested does not mean in any way whatsoever Emily did.

Other than that, I still love you.:-)

[DistressedAmerican]

26. I think that is the important thing to remember.

These folks apparently did nothing to provoke the arrests. They were not practicing civil disobedience, they were lawfully protesting!

[Padraig18]

27. I couldn't tell that from the video.

I'm not calling anyone a liar--- please. What I'm saying is that I couldn't tell, based on the video. Now, what I do want to say arises out of my own 'life experience', i.e., being married to a cop and, consequently, knowing a lot of others. My life exerience tells me that it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that a police officer would arrest someone for 'doing nothing'. There's no point in it that I can see; virtually every cop I know HATES having to go to court and testify, for one, so a simple human 'avoidance' reaction would likely operate to keep arrests for 'doing nothing' to a minimum, don't you think?

:shrug:

[DistressedAmerican]

28. I believe that the arrests were part of a strategy to disperse the crowd

The arrests were used to make the treat of more arrests if the crowd did not disperse. It also accurred just as the meeting was letting out. I think they were caught up innpolice efforts to remove the proteesters. Perod.

Please check out the full account on my website. Every witness denies that either of the two individuals crossed the line.

[frictionlessO]

31. I hear ya...

Every cop Ive ever known hates court as well.

But as Distressed says elsewhere it looks like it is/was a tactic. I mean we all know the police use dispersal tactics that aren't always above board.

All I know is what Ive learned from cops good and bad (which funny enough is exactly equal in my life), is that like any other group of people with lots of power and authority there is plenty of corruption to go around.

This "may" be a case of such and Im glad you don't think that Emily is out and out lieing.

Peace to you and yours Paddy.

[DistressedAmerican]

30. Evening Kick!

You Evening folks. They are out there. But, we CAN prevail!

[DistressedAmerican]

34. Just A little Motivational Graphic!

A bunch of accounts from AAR listerners that heard my call and a bunch more video are also on the way. Stay tuned.

[Ian David]

35. 2 officers indicted in Kmart raid Frivolous Arrests can come from above

While I agree with the poster who said that individual officers usually like to avoid going to court, it becomes a lot different when they are under orders to make frivolous arrests...

2 officers indicted in Kmart raid
By RACHEL GRAVES
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
Dec. 6, 2002, 4:58PM

A Harris County grand jury today indicted two Houston police officers on charges related to the arrest of nearly 300 people in a Kmart parking lot earlier this year.

Capt. Mark A. Aguirre, the ranking officer in charge of the raid, and Sgt. Ken Wenzel were each indicted on five charges of official oppression for the arrests.

The Aug. 18 raid in the 8400 block of Westheimer was intended to crack down on drag racing, but the arrests were made for trespassing and curfew violations. Thirteen police supervisors were suspended in the incident, and the city faces one lawsuit and 89 claims for damages filed by people seeking millions of dollars.

<snip>

"It's not indictments on police in general, and it's certainly not an indictment on the Houston Police Department in general," he said. "It's almost unheard of for HPD to arrest almost 300 people."

More:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/topstory/1691849


Also:
Video: Archived coverage of weekend raid in Kmart parking lot.
(Video courtesy of KHOU, Ch. 11)
(Requires Real Player)
http://playlist.broadcast.com/makestream.asp?ID=3282731



Also:

Houston Police Disgrace

Heads had better roll in reaction to this police travesty from Houston. This story represents police overreaction and misconduct so outrageous that no one can excuse it or allow it to pass without the strongest of judgments against those responsible. Houston Chronicle reporter S.K. Bardwell follows up on the story linked above:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/topstory2/1539629
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1540867

Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford ordered an investigation Monday into the weekend arrests of hundreds of people gathered peacefully at a westside parking lot by police who were assigned to stop illegal drag racing.

Officers on the scene called the arrests "utterly, utterly senseless" on Monday, and said the captain in charge, Mark Aguirre, ordered them to round up everyone who was outside the 24-hour Kmart Super Center or eating at the Sonic Drive-In next door.

They arrested everyone. Why?

Bardwell continues his report:

"But we got out there, and no one was racing," said one of the {police} supervisors. "So {Captain} Aguirre just said, `Arrest them all for trespass.'

More:
http://www.cheslog.com/craig/parrhesia/archives/000592.html


Google:
Results 1 - 100 of about 362 for Houston police "Mark Aguirre" and "parking lot".
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=Houston+police+%22Mark+Aguirre%22+and+%22parking+lot%22&btnG=Search

[DistressedAmerican]

40. Thanks for these stories.

It gives me ideas for some lines of questions for the legal folks.

[TryingToWarnYou]

36. Ok allow me to make some comments/suggestions from a LE point of view

So far we have seen that as the New Jersey event was letting out, the police decided to disperse the crowd of (perfectly legal) protesters. They began by grabbing and arresting several people from the crowd, none of whom had in any way broken the law.

This is complete speculation on your part. You have absolutely no way of knowing if anyone broke the law.

These arrests were them used to threaten the others that if they did not disperse they would also be arrested. In the New Jersey case the tactic worked fairly well. They arrested 9 and dispersed the protesters in minutes.

If you are told to disperse, disperse. Do not stand around and block passageways, roads, sidewalks etc. That is specifically AGAINST THE LAW in most places, probably NJ too. I dont know what the law in NJ is, but maybe a parade permit was required?

Here's what I suggest. First, take a camera. It is a lot easier to defend people who are charged with video or photos than just a story.

Why take photos? They have no context. Use video exclusively. (even then there is no real context as the video can be 'edited' to show whatever the photographer wants)

Second, if arrests begin, it is important for the crowd NOT TO DISPERSE.

If arrests begin, you would be really wise to do what you are told. Again, you may be breaking the law and not realize it. Failing to disperse allows law enforcement to see your 'peaceful' display as a mob/potential riot situation and to act accordingly. You are giving bad advice.

I think it would be far more effective for everyone to just sit right down there and if need be get arrested. It is a lot harder for the MSM to ignore the arrests of 150 protesters than it is to ignore 9.

Right and when the cops charge you with a legitimate crime, you get to suffer the consequences. Ensure you know the law before you plan to play games with the freedom of you and other individuals.

Fill their local jails and hold a jail cell rally. It worked for MLK!

Uh huh. And that was how many decades ago? Things have changed considerably since then and no jail anywhere is going to let you have a 'jail cell rally'. At the first sign of disruption you will find a response team zip-tying your hands as you are put in a restraint chair. They have every legitimate right to ensure the safety and security of their facility and that includes dealing with disruptors attempting to incite disturbances.

I understand that this takes a commitment. It will most likely result in disorderly conduct charges, fines and a Secret Service file.

I think in all fairness, you should be the one paying it for everyone that gets busted due to your 'advice'.

However, if we allow these folks to drive us off when we are well within out legal rights, THEN THEY WIN!

See, thats the whole issue. I would wager a million dollars that you do not know what is legal or illegal when it comes to your ideas for protesting. Ive read what you wrote here and I can see it quite clearly that you seem to think getting arrested, fined etc. is the way to go about things. Its not. You have to be smarter than that. Its one thing to get arrested because you did something wrong, but its quite another to set out to specifically create a problem and then get arrested.

Before you reply to me with vitriol and hatred for 'the man' let me say that Im on your side. I really am. I hate this administration more than you probably, but it chaps my ass to read stuff like what you wrote when I know what the end result will be for people that create problems in situations where the cops are prepared for people creating problems..get it? Act smarter and think about what you do. There are protests every day that manage to get their points across without resorting to receiving a criminal record at the end of the day.

BE CIVIL BUT, BE DISOBEDIENT!

Uh, you do realize that this is a contradiction, right?

[DistressedAmerican]

38. I am very interested in comments from LE.

As long as you realize that our basic disagreement comes down to one thing. IS civil disobedience an effective tactic in the face of police intimidation of protesters or not. You seem to feel that any obstruction of a lawfully given police order is counterproductive to the cause. You question the tactics of civil disobedience. Apparently you assume that breaking any law is unjustifiable in an effort to make people pay attention to social issues. I Strongly disagree. The tactic has worked time and time again.

When I spoke of a "jail cell rally", I was being figurative, referring to the media attention that could come from the arrests at large scale, peaceful, civilly disobedient "sit-in". Although it is nice to hear that you think "a response team zip-tying your hands as you are put in a restraint chair" is an appropriate use of force by the police. It makes my point more clearly than I could have. Why do you think that you can reign in protesters better today? Zip ties? They had dogs!

You say that civil disobedience is a contradiction in terms. On the contrary. I firmly disagree that you can not be disobedient without being civil. By civil Gandhi, MLK and others mean non-violent. By disobedient they meant breaking just laws in order to call attention to an issue. Where is the contradiction there?

I am well aware of the laws in question. In particular, the details of the charges that have been brought. I make quite clear in my comments that this is a tactic for generating attention to the cause. I have not misled anyone by implying that it was not a violation of the law. Protesters who practice civil disobedience are well aware they are breaking the law and should be prepared for the possible consequences. To that end, I am assembling a good deal of legal aid information that will be posted to my site along with these tactics soon.

Now let me ask you something? What do you suggest protesters do if confronted with police intimidation at a rally? What are your "smarter than that" suggestions? I think a lot of activists going back decades would disagree with your obey the law at all costs approach to protest. Do you think the civil rights protesters of the 1960's were wrong or ineffective standing up to dogs, hoses and brutes? They intentionally set out to break laws, non-violent ones. Were they wrong?

As far as charges of speculation please read these corroborating eyewitness accounts from several individuals that have offered to testify at the court case and any that flow from these events:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/westfieldlatest.htm

More video is on the way. Just having flu and tech issues. I'll get it up asap.

Looks like this guy is "prepared for people creating problems..get it?"

Thanks to DUer jarnocan for this shot of one officer at the scene. He does look like he'd zip tie your butt in a second.

On Edit- FYI - My sister says there were quite a few dogs in vans parked on site.

[TryingToWarnYou]

42. Nice to see some actual discussion :-)

Thanks for responding in a civil manner. Lots of times it doesnt work out that way here.

As long as you realize that our basic disagreement comes down to one thing. IS civil disobedience an effective tactic in the face of police intimidation of protesters or not.

Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem.

You seem to feel that any obstruction of a lawfully given police order is counterproductive to the cause.

You said it yourself: A lawfully given police order.

So, yes, it is counterproductive to the cause.

You question the tactics of civil disobedience. Apparently you assume that breaking any law is unjustifiable in an effort to make people pay attention to social issues. I Strongly disagree. The tactic has worked time and time again.

When you break the law, you are subject to the penalties of such actions. Blaming the cops for doing their jobs doesnt help the situation at all. That sounds harsh given the different levels of crime out there, but you have to understand that cops are not judges. They evaluate situations to determine whether or not a persons actions meet the elements of an offense. If so, they act on that. The courts then determine if the persons actions equalled the elements of the offense. If so, punishment is given out. If not, the case is dismissed.

When I spoke of a "jail cell rally", I was being figurative, referring to the media attention that could come from the arrests at large scale, peaceful, civilly disobedient "sit-in".

Ok, thanks for clarifying your point.

Although it is nice to hear that you think "a response team zip-tying your hands as you are put in a restraint chair" is an appropriate use of force by the police. It makes my point more clearly than I could have. Why do you think that you can reign in protesters better today? Zip ties? They had dogs!

How much use of force training have you had? Do you know what is considered appropriate use of force? Excessive force? Do you know the Supreme Courts rulings regarding use of force issues? These things are not based on the opinion of someone standing on a corner, but on case law and precedent. Before you can say that a situation was excessive force, you have to know the facts.

You say that civil disobedience is a contradiction in terms. On the contrary. I firmly disagree that you can not be disobedient without being civil. By civil Gandhi, MLK and others mean non-violent. By disobedient they meant breaking just laws in order to call attention to an issue. Where is the contradiction there?

Hmm, Im not going to presume to interpret what Dr. King and Ghandi might have meant, but Dr. King stated "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Keeping the peace at a rally/gathering etc. is considered a just law.

I am well aware of the laws in question. In particular, the details of the charges that have been brought. I make quite clear in my comments that this is a tactic for generating attention to the cause. I have not misled anyone by implying that it was not a violation of the law. Protesters who practice civil disobedience are well aware they are breaking the law and should be prepared for the possible consequences. To that end, I am assembling a good deal of legal aid information that will be posted to my site along with these tactics soon.

Good. Ensure you know the laws and what constitutes an offense. Out of curiosity, what was being protested?

Now let me ask you something? What do you suggest protesters do if confronted with police intimidation at a rally? What are your "smarter than that" suggestions?

Im a little curious about your ideas of 'police intimidation'. The cops doing their jobs is not intimidation. You also have to ask yourself why you think its intimidation. To what end? Why would they care if you are there protesting whatever? Their job is to ensure the safety and security of the area as well as to preserve the peace. This is especially important in post 9/11. As for my suggestions, practically every law enforcement agency in America has an internal affairs section that addresses improper behavior by their officers. If you believe an officer has acted improperly, obtain their badge number and name and file a formal complaint. I can tell you that it is very effective and the complaints are taken seriously despite what you may believe. Just as you do not want officers acting improperly or illegally, neither do the departments that they work for. Another suggestion, police your own people. If you see some asshat throwing rocks, cussing out the cops etc. snatch them aside and ask them to knock it off. Its only going to give the cops a legitimate reason to act against you or your protest. Call ahead before the rally/protest and inform the media of your intentions to march, sit in etc. TV cameras love to show up at events like that where there is a potential for news.

I think a lot of activists going back decades would disagree with your obey the law at all costs approach to protest. Do you think the civil rights protesters of the 1960's were wrong or ineffective standing up to dogs, hoses and brutes? They intentionally set out to break laws, non-violent ones. Were they wrong?

No, they werent wrong. Those were unjust laws. Segregation, as an example, is patently wrong.

As far as charges of speculation please read these corroborating eyewitness accounts from several individuals that have offered to testify at the court case and any that flow from these events:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/westfiel...

Well, its still speculation. People will do anything with the right motivation. Im not saying that they would, but that they could and that has to be considered.

Looks like this guy is "prepared for people creating problems..get it?"

Theres a good example of context. One really bad picture and we are supposed to know what that officer is thinking or considering? Shall I get the picture of Hillary where she looks drunk and suggest thats the situation? Not exactly fair is it?

[DistressedAmerican]

44. First you should understand that I want valid input.

I am not here to argue or flame anyone. Feel free to check my past posts. You'll find nothing rude or abusive. My interest is more effectively getting out an Anti-Bush message. The incident in Westfield is a case study for that end. It provides an an example of several things.

First, it showed (in my opinion and that of many others) what appeared to be bullying and harassment of a crowd of otherwise peaceful protesters. You clearly give the benefit of the doubt on the case (of which you have more not knowing the people I am getting my info from directly). I have known the person that shot the video all of my life and I trust her. You have every reason to be skeptical. Fair enough.

However, you should save some of your skepticism for accused. My guilty until pr oven innocent presumption remains with them in this incident. Unfortunately, that same presumption is an under current in how the law is practiced. Most testimony from the police will (in practice) be weighed more heavily.

What is alleged here is that the police without provocation began grabbing peaceful, non-aggressive protesters out of the crowd without cause. If charges of this nature are ever filed, the folks involved should also be presumed innocent and as the police are not the ones facing charges, I think you could at least consider the possibility that the police did overreact to this situation.

You should also understand that "our people" (a telling dichotomy in your thinking about this situation) did not incite violence, they did not inflict violence. From the perspective of those that witnessed the incident, it was the police that used unjustified force against protesters. No "asshat" did any of the things you suggest we should be policing ourselves for. Some did begin to use abusive language but, only after the arrests which EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT I have received clearly appeared unprovoked and and abuse of authority. Just a note, it is hard to write down a badge number while 4-6 guys are cuffing you.

Yes, I am skeptical of claims that police departments are good at policing "your people". Let me add that the mere experience of being grabbed, cuffed, booked, held in cuffs for several hours, hiring a lawyer, going to court, and hoping like hell that they dismiss the charges is the penalty that a cop can impose despite their lack of status as a judge. If applied unfairly, that should be fought. Pressure should be applied to be sure that when such incidents occur (possibly inevitable given tensions these days) they do not re-occur. I am glad to see that at least we can agree that if the police are guilty of the things alleged by the witnesses, that they should be disciplined. I suspect when if are booked, they will walk in and get booked rather thank getting rushed by several of "your people".

I have a million other things to be doing but let me point one glaring inconsistency in what you have written. You begin right off by stating "Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem." You go on to note that MLK believed it was your duty to disobey unjust laws. When asked if the civil rights protesters were wrong to use the tactics they did, you say, "No, they weren't wrong. Those were unjust laws. Segregation, as an example, is patently wrong." If that doesn't equal an outright endorsement of peaceful civil disobedience I haven't heard one.

Thanks for the feedback.

BTW - Fair response to the photo. However as far as I know she is drunk. If she were arresting someone looking like that I'd question that too.
:hi:

[TryingToWarnYou]

55. Youre welcome! :-)

I am not here to argue or flame anyone. Feel free to check my past posts. You'll find nothing rude or abusive. My interest is more effectively getting out an Anti-Bush message. The incident in Westfield is a case study for that end. It provides an an example of several things.

Im sure youre not. You dont come across that way either. I respect your right and duty to speak out. Lord knows we need more of it.

First, it showed (in my opinion and that of many others) what appeared to be bullying and harassment of a crowd of otherwise peaceful protesters.

But a group of likeminded people (i.e. supporters of the protest), yes? How many unbiased people were there to support the claims? You have to consider the source. Thats not a dig or an insult, its just the way something has to be looked at to get an objective view.

You clearly give the benefit of the doubt on the case (of which you have more not knowing the people I am getting my info from directly).

Im giving benefit of the doubt based on the evidence you presented. Im not saying nothing happened, but Im saying that what it showed wasnt much.

I have known the person that shot the video all of my life and I trust her. You have every reason to be skeptical. Fair enough.

Thats not really the issue. I would feel the same way if it was my best friend that shot it. The camera simply didnt show anything wrong IMO. Another person further to the left or right might have gotten something different and that could make the situation very different. I would actually suggest using more than one person with a camera if you dont already do it. It will back up any legal actions you seek and it will keep everyone on both sides honest.

However, you should save some of your skepticism for accused. My guilty until proven innocent presumption remains with them in this incident.

Ok, but thats not really very fair or accurate is it? Is it possible that someone on the protestors side did something wrong that you dont know about? I wish I had a nickel for every time I arrested someone who had no clue what they did wrong. Either the were full of it or they honestly didnt know. You would probably also be surprised at how many people dont know the laws of their state or municipality. They can recite Simpsons episodes word for word, but dont know their responsibilities (or rights for that matter) as a citizen.

Unfortunately, that same presumption is an under current in how the law is practiced. Most testimony from the police will (in practice) be weighed more heavily.

True. A lot depends on how its presented too, what the attorneys do, what the State chooses to do etc. All jury trials come down to a case of "who put on the better show". Additionally, keep in mind that law enforcement oftentimes has serious amounts of evidence to back up their claims. Crime scene analysis, DNA tests, Intoxilyzer, video, audio, etc. The officer simply tells the story and the evidence actually convinces people. This works both ways. The defense has tools at their disposal as well.

What is alleged here is that the police without provocation began grabbing peaceful, non-aggressive protesters out of the crowd without cause.

Ok, fair enough..where is the evidence? Who got it on tape? Did they file a complaint with ACLU or their own attorney?

If charges of this nature are ever filed, the folks involved should also be presumed innocent and as the police are not the ones facing charges, I think you could at least consider the possibility that the police did overreact to this situation.

Im not saying the cops are innocent at all. What Im saying is that neither you nor I have all the facts. You have some video, thats been edited, and it shows very little. If thats the best evidence you have, there isnt a jury in the world thats going to indict anyone for excessive force. Im not trying to be a prick, but thats the way I see that tape at this time.

You should also understand that "our people" (a telling dichotomy in your thinking about this situation) did not incite violence, they did not inflict violence.

I used that term to just delineate the two sides. I probably should have chosen a better word. The girl I heard screaming obscenities should have been charged with disorderly conduct (applying Texas law here since I dont know what it would be in NJ). Thats not the mark of someone thats going to cooperate. As for not inciting violence, unless you know what everyone was doing, you cant say that. Its far too general of a statement. Same for the inflicting of violence.

From the perspective of those that witnessed the incident, it was the police that used unjustified force against protesters. No "asshat" did any of the things you suggest we should be policing ourselves for.

Again, you dont know why the force was used. I find it very hard to believe that everyone was an angel. Im not being snarky, but its human nature at events like that to act out. Ive yet to see a protest where there wasnt at least one person creating a problem by doing something they shouldnt.

Some did begin to use abusive language but, only after the arrests which EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT I have received clearly appeared unprovoked and and abuse of authority. Just a note, it is hard to write down a badge number while 4-6 guys are cuffing you.

If you have that much as evidence, contact the police department and make a formal complaint. I know that sounds weak, but its the best way to start a paper trail to where the allegations can be investigated and charges brought against the officers if warranted.

Yes, I am skeptical of claims that police departments are good at policing "your people".

I can understand that. I have no reason to lie to you, though. Most departments take allegations very seriously. Some, unfortunately, whitewash complaints and never do anything at all.

Let me add that the mere experience of being grabbed, cuffed, booked, held in cuffs for several hours, hiring a lawyer, going to court, and hoping like hell that they dismiss the charges if the penalty that a cop can impose despite their lack of status as a judge.

The act of the arrest itself is not considered punitive even though to the person being arrested, it feels that way.

If allied unfairly, that should be fought. Pressure should be applied to be sure that when such incidents occur (possibly inevitable given tensions these days) they do not re-occur.

Ok, Im assuming allied = applied? If so, I agree with you 100%

I am glad to see that at least we can agree that if the police are guilty of the things alleged by the witnesses, that they should be disciplined. I suspect when if are booked, they will walk in and get booked rather thank getting rushed by several of "your people".

Absolutely. At least here, officers arrested are treated no differently than others arrested that arent officers.

I have a million other things to be doing but let me point one glaring inconsistency in what you have written. You begin right off by stating "Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem." You go on to note that MLK believed it was your duty to disobey unjust laws. When asked if the civil rights protesters were wrong to use the tactics they did, you say, "No, they weren't wrong. Those were unjust laws. Segregation, as an example, is patently wrong." If that doesn't equal an outright endorsement of peaceful civil disobedience I haven't heard one.

What I should have clarified is that there are just and unjust laws. Just laws shouldnt be broken, but unjust laws, such as segregation, should be broken. I responded to another person here in this thread about my statement as well. I wasnt very clear and I apologize. When referring to the civil disobedience not being the answer to a problem, I was referring to situations like what we were discussing, not obvious issues like segregation. I hope this helped clear it up a bit.

Thanks for the feedback.

No problem.

BTW - Fair response to the photo. However as far as I know she is drunk. If she were arresting someone looking like that I'd question that too.

Ha ha. My point was that you cant use a picture to make an absolute statement or even to imply something. Without proper context, its just an image.

[LibertyorDeath]

47. "Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem."

ROTFLMAO !

What fucking Planet are you on ?

If it were not for Civil disobedience America would still be in the Dark ages especially where Civil Rights are concerned.

You should sit and have a chat with the Late MLK

This is one of the most anti - democratic opinions I've ever read at DU

"Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem"

I think your point of view is myopic

[TryingToWarnYou]

51. Thanks for not reading.

I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. Apparently you missed some things.

As for my statement, I want to clarify that the problems I referred to was in reference to rallies, protests etc., such as the topic of discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with civil disobedience for unjust laws.

[LibertyorDeath]

54. So in other words you stand behind this statement

"Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem"

Whether a law is just or unjust is open to interpretation usually by
the same power that has caused you to engage in Civil disobedience in the first place.

So Do You Stand behind your statement or not

"Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem"

[TryingToWarnYou]

56. You still arent getting it..

Whether a law is just or unjust is open to interpretation usually by
the same power that has caused you to engage in Civil disobedience in the first place.

Its not open to interpretation. King and others were pretty clear on it and I agree with them in principle. Whats open to interpretation is whether or not Presidential protests are for just or unjust reasons.

I do NOT stand by my statement as I wrote it and I thought I had clarified my meaning. I apologize for being unclear.

Again, I have no problem with civil disobedience against unjust laws.

[LibertyorDeath]

57. "I do NOT stand by my statement as I wrote it "

Well now it's crystal.

Thanks.

[TryingToWarnYou]

63. You still dont get it.. I give up.

What I meant was that I didnt write it as I should have and I cannot stand by that statement. I did not proof read it and it was unclear at the time. To make things more confusing for you, I think we agree.

:-)

Its about just and unjust laws.

unjust laws = bad.

just laws = good.

[shadowknows69]

60. It it weren't for civil disobedience

we'd still be under the rule of King George....Oh wait...never mind.

[Swamp Rat]

62. "Civil disobedience is never the proper solution to any problem."

That is, quite possibly, the most fundamentally un-American statement I have ever read.

[TryingToWarnYou]

65. I admitted my comment was incorrect. Please read my other responses.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. My sister inquires why protest groups are separated into small pockets?

Why is is it a legitimate police tactic for a large number of protesters (the point of turning out being to have a large group ther for media attention) to be split into small ineffective groups when they are there in mass and peaceful?

Is that not an attempt to both intimidate and to make the protests look smaller?

[TryingToWarnYou]

43. Larger groups = larger potential for problems

Its not for intimidation, but for maximizing the effectiveness of the limited number of officers.

[DistressedAmerican]

45. FYI - This Was A Presidential Visit. There Is No Expense Spared.

I'm sure they could have a one to one even two to one ratio on these folks if desired. You should consider that these tactics MAY JUST ACTUALLY be to dishearten and weaken the protest actions (maybe as you see it to maintain "the peace"). End result is the same. Each TV camera sees a small isolated group of protesters. Makes a large crowd look small.

Work with me a little here. Isn't it just possible that there are politicians that would benefit enough from such tactics to send orders on down the line to undermine these events?

[TryingToWarnYou]

49. Orders to undermine? Absolutely.

I have no trouble believing that, but I also know what a manpower shortage is and depending on the area etc. there may not have been enough officers for such a large crowd. All of that is determined by estimates and projections from past rallies and protests. Maybe somebody goofed, who knows? We could both be right.

[DistressedAmerican]

61. The internal logic in this argument is flawed.

If they underestimated man power why were they prepares to split the protest? Why is this tactic a realtively new one under this administration (as far as ai can tell)? I do think it is an efffort to undermine the protests.

As you well know I think the arrests were made to imtimidate and disperse the crowd. Resisting that by peaceful sit down tactics or something similar is disobeying an unjust law. It just doesn;'t seem you think that is unjust.

[TryingToWarnYou]

64. Well, Im assuming something as well...

Im assuming that once the groups are split they are sent out of the area? I dont know I wasnt there. If you remove the groups, the number of people goes down. :-)

The tactics of the officers are not determined by this administration. Each department is responsible for training their personnel to meet the various challenges presented.

The actions of the officers might have been to undermine the protests.

From a professional perspective, I dont really see what there is to gain for their actions of either intimidation (if the rally was peaceful) or to undermine the protests. When you work something like that, you dont *want* anything to happen. No reports = a good thing. They risk negative publicity, lawsuits, injury etc. Unless something surfaces to show they were complicit with 'higher ups' to intimidate or undermine, they were doing their job.

What law is unjust that you feel warranted civil disobedience? Im asking seriously. I dont see how keeping protestors from the path of the motorcade is unjust. Can you explain it?

[DistressedAmerican]

67. I am concerned about policies.

These events are always a mix of people that are opposed to bush's policy on the war, the mixing of government and corporate interests, social security reform etc.

My main concern is Bush's overall plan "for" the Middle East. I believe that the neocon vision for the region that Bush id clearly endorsing is a clear over stepping or our role in the world. I believe that the information that was used to place us in the war was so biased by the time it reached Congress or the UN it was meaningless, a fact proved by the complete absence of WMD.

That's my main gripe. I have serious issues with his cabinet appointments, his mixing religion and public policy, his position of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I could go on. Please browse my graphics galleries at the link below if you are still curious what troubles me.

Let me summarize this way: I believe that the Bush administration's policies (particular foreign policies) result in the deaths, directly or indirectly that it is our ethical obligation to resist them by any peaceful means needed. part of that is resisting through civil disobedience unreasonable and possibly unlawful police tactics used to prevent peacefully assembled protesters expressing a mix of views that oppose the government.
So many of Bush's policies (some of which are laws that you enforce, some far more shadowy) are "unjust" that civil; disobedience to call attention to the collective injustice of the administration if justified.

Agree or disagree?

[TryingToWarnYou]

68. Understood

My main concern is Bush's overall plan "for" the Middle East. I believe that the neocon vision for the region that Bush id clearly endorsing is a clear over stepping or our role in the world.

Agreed. I think he feels he had such a success with Iraq that forcing situations in the ME is a good idea. He is definately sticking his nose (our noses, as a Nation) into things we dont need to be involved in at this time. The absolute hubris, arrogance, piousness and aggressiveness of this administration is astonishing. In my opinion, its the main reason we are targets now for every terrorist and hate group out there.

I believe that the Bush administration's policies (particular foreign policies) result in the deaths, directly or indirectly that it is our ethical obligation to resist them by any peaceful means needed.

I respect your POV.

So many of Bush's policies (some of which are laws that you enforce, some far more shadowy) are "unjust" that civil; disobedience to call attention to the collective injustice of the administration if justified.

I dont work for Bush. He has nothing to do, as far as I know, with the creation of laws for the State of Texas. That said, I respect your opinion of what you feel you need to do.

[DistressedAmerican]

69. Well It Is Glad To See Us Getting Some Common Ground Despite

the obvious differences in our perspectives. Just try to remember all of this the day Bush rolls into your home town and they put you out on the front lines. Be fair, use the minimum force possible during arrests, etc.

I have no problem with cops in general. I just have issues with ones that exceed their authority and intimidate or harass. Have a good one.
:toast:

[Roland99]

41. Excellent info! Thanks!

[LibertyorDeath]

48. "self identified" Law enforcement DU'ers

So that's what their calling themselves now.

[DistressedAmerican]

52. To Be Fair, It Is Really Something I First Used.

Seemed to fit the circumstances.

I figured as he/she is rightly sketical of things posted from anonymous sources, I had no reason to assume that these folks were actually law enforcement related at all. Hence "self-identified". The rest needs no comment from me.

[TryingToWarnYou]

66. Hmmm

Well, we dont seem to popular here and some wont 'come out'. Seems theres no pleasing anybody. Heh.