All posts in the topic Arrested in Downtown Minneapolis, Chief Dolan Targets Journalists (Short link)
Summary
- There are 41 posts — by 29 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Dave Garland at Sep 13 05:10 UTC
On Wednesday night I was arrested after the Rage Against the Machine concert at the Target Center. I am an independent and contract photojournalist and did not attend the concert and I'm not affiliated with any protest groups. Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher and Saint Paul Police Chief John Harrington have been telling the media that Wednesday night's Rage Against the Machine concert was going to be crazy, and that protests would surely ensue. I arrived about 45 minutes before the concert got out. Officers were already lining Hennepin and 1st Avenues in full riot gear, waiting for the concert to get out. Before it got out, there were mounted cops lining the streets and cops with large wooden batons all around. Waves of people came out, and initially peacefully made their exit from the Target Center to their vehicles. I suspect that after getting out of a Rage Against the Machine concert, seeing cops in riot gear isn't going to send the right message. Minneapolis Police, simply by presence (which is a use of force according to the use of force continuum) provoked the crowd to protest. Cops lined the street east, south and west. I stayed clear from police while other journalists got in their face. The crowd gathered not around police, but each other, and shouted expletives about republicans. Three individuals were quite intent on bringing chaos, while another two individuals were quite intent on not giving the police justification to arrest. The protest group started getting a bit wild, taunting police officers who just stood there without providing orders to back away. Someone who claimed to work for Rage Against the Machine and several people wearing yellow "peace" jackets asked everyone to move to the sidewalks. Target Center's private security stepped in when it was on their sidewalk. When police moved horses away, it was the peace activists that advised everyone that they were likely doing it with the intent of using tear gas. The crowd became more wild, and went down the street and into oncoming traffic. Police took awhile to respond. I should have realized that they were coming up with a scheme. An officer gave the order for everyone to back away, and I immediately complied. Protesters didn't. I switched lenses to go a further distance back to stay away from the action. Officers guided the group down a specific path and before I knew it, all of us were surrounded at S 7th Street and 2nd Ave S. Officers started shooting impact rounds into the crowd that was cornered by police from all directions. We were cornered even further up against the building and the police moved us against a different building, announced that we were all under arrest, and ordered us to sit on the ground and place our hands above our heads. By that time, I had various cards from media and journalist organizations in my hand. Police started using plastic riot cuffs to arrest the protesters. I saw Chief Tim Dolan standing about 15 feet from me. I calmly said "Chief Dolan!" He approached, and I stated that I was a photojournalist. My hands were on my head and my camera was around my neck. The second I announced that I was an independent journalist (as in, I sell my photographs and I don't work for a single media organization), he waved his hand and dismissed me completely, walking away. Another officer that was with him gave me the middle finger. I recognized him from other events in Minneapolis, and it was quite shocking to be disrespected and not listened to -- and by the Chief of Police, of all people. I'm obviously not some protester from out of town if I can recognize the Chief and call him by name. Actually, I was taking photos of his swearing in in January 2007 at City Hall. An officer walked over and asked the group if we had ever been to jail before, laughing and taunting us. One officer made a crude sexual joke in quite poor taste at someone who appeared to be under 18. I made phone calls to friends and family while I was there, and talked so an officer could hear me. I told a friend I was talking to that I had nothing to do with anything that was going on and emphasized that I was nervous. Officers heard me. They would not allow me to get water out of my bag. When an officer approached me, I attempted to present two cards that identify me as a photojournalist and I was told that I was under arrest and I needed to keep my hands out of my pockets. I was told I would be transported out of the jurisdiction to Saint Paul, and I would wait until I'm charged. I was told that if I was well-behaved, I might be out within 36 hours with bail and a court appearance where I could tell the judge that I'm a journalist. The officer took the cards, and attempted to take my camera memory cards. He handcuffed me with plastic riot cuffs and made me sit down again with force. He pushed me and my camera hit the ground, breaking my lens and nearly breaking off my external flash. I have yet to determine if there's any other damage. Another officer came over asking, "who's that kid that doesn't want to be arrested?" I replied, "that'd be me!" I was grabbed along with four other people who looked like they were scared to death. Several of the police officers dressed in riot gear grabbed our arms and paraded us past the media, who jumped on the opportunity to photograph us in handcuffs. They said that we were "lucky" and they cut the plastic cuffs off our wrists and we were all told (ordered?) not to return to Minneapolis ever again, despite my residence being just eight blocks away in Loring Park. I'm most disappointed by all of this because I'm so supportive of the Minneapolis Police Department and initiatives like CCP/SAFE and beat patrols. I am in complete support of many of the MPD's goals when it comes to dealing with street-level narcotics, gangs and livability crimes. I think that police officers are underpaid and under-appreciated for the difficult and risky work they take on, and I have a lot of respect for them. It has to be hard to solve other people's problems day in and day out. I've never participated in a protest in my life, and I'm a highly peaceful person. My presence at the event was nothing more than documenting the scene, as my camera doesn't lie. I've photographed events from all over the political spectrum. I feel grossly violated. Sure, I wasn't hauled to jail, but after being arrested, handcuffed, and then paraded in front of the media without recognition of my presence purely as a journalist, I can't pretend this is another day of work. A KARE 11 reporter approached me and seemed to be shocked. I ran into a couple other photojournalists who agreed with me that the police were quite disrespectful. Let me also say that there were people at the event that deserved to be arrested, and should absolutely be arrested. It is not okay to parade around Downtown Minneapolis at midnight and scare people -- republicans or not -- just trying to drive down the street. It's also not an effective way to get a message across, but those are just my personal opinions. Also my opinion: I'm disgusted by the way protesters acted in Saint Paul on Monday. Being destructive to the property of local businesses does not send a message to the republican party, but hurts local people and businesses who might even have the same ideologies as the protesters. But I'm getting away from the point, which is that I'm not one of them and I wasn't listened to when I attempted to identify myself. I'll summarize by stating that Sheriff Bob Fletcher WANTED there to be a protest, so he worked with Minneapolis Police to CREATE the protest. In fact, he worked with MPD and SPPD and someone decided to bring in the Commander from LAPD who was in charge during the last protest back in 2000. Because they handled it so well? Cops instigated rioting simply by surrounding the area -- many people agree with me on this. A better strategy would have been to wait around the corner. Protesters were cornered and arrested, and upon identifying myself as a photojournalist, Chief Dolan deliberately and rudely dismissed me and one of his officers flipped me off. I was refused access to water, yelled at, intimidated, made fun of, and paraded past the media as some sort of trophy. I was told I was not released as a photojournalist, but because I was "lucky." I was ordered not to come back to Minneapolis again, yet here I am at home in Loring Park. What right does a police officer to tell me I'm not welcome in my home city? I acknowledge the risks involved with being in the situation, and I take responsibility for getting myself into the situation, but I call on Police administration to take responsibility for inciting riots and refusing to listen to me. I was entirely peaceful, calm and cooperative. I can't avoid being hit with OC spray/CS (tear) gas on accident, but I feel that I should be able to avoid being arrested and identified as a protester. Although I wish I had escaped the area before police surrounded it, a photojournalist has to believe in "risk equals reward." I'm just a bit shocked at what that risk yielded on Wednesday night. I am beyond disappointed, violated, and I am literally sick. How am I not to think of this event the next time I need to do something in support of the police department? How can I ever look at a Minneapolis Police Officer and immediately think happy thoughts of community policing that I used to? I want Tim Dolan and the entire MPD Administration to acknowledge the errors that were made, and to apologize to me and those who were wrongly arrested in a public news conference. I want to be reimbursed for my broken camera equipment, which is essential to doing my job. Simply being present, especially as a journalist, is not grounds for arrest. I want officers who made lewd comments to be disciplined, and I want our municipal government to start working for the people of Minneapolis, which starts by evaluating police administration and creating different law enforcement policy and urban policing initiatives. I want violent and disruptive protesters to be charged based on evidence or observed actions, and for there not to be large gatherings of arrestees charged with a misdemeanor for simply for being present at an event that had NO property damage or violence, unlike in Saint Paul. And finally, I want city officials to join me and others in calling for investigations of the intelligence gathering methods, media intimidation and targeting, and preemptive arrests. I've posted photos from Wednesday night on Flickr at http://flickr.com/photos/diversey/sets/72157607104628450/ . I took over 1,600 photos in just under two hours, and I'm posting just a handful -- if Chief Dolan didn't target and disrespect journalists, I'm sure many would support his work by providing evidence of crimes, because I certainly have more than enough photos of that. Apologies for the rant, but it's all of our tax dollars going to support this reckless activity. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we need better police administration in Minneapolis. Tony Webster Loring Park 612-424-5426
In a post to the "Minneapolis Issues List" Photo-Journalist Tony Webster
describes what he considered to be police abuse of himself in the presence of
Minneapolis Chief of Police Tim Dolan. I have no data to support what Tony
Webster has reported. HOWEVER, what he reports does sound a great deal factual.
In fact, the disrespect he reports is something I have both personally observed
on occasion,and been VERY, VERY, upset about. If the report is factual, I think
the officer who accompanied Dolan and laughingly "gave Tim Webster the finger"
should be more than simply disciplined. He should be fired. Such a person has
NO business being a Minneapolis police officer he endangers the public. The
person who attempted to take the photo card fromTony Webster'scamera should be
fired, such a person has NO business being a Minneapolis police officer, he
endangers the public. The officer who toldMr. Websterto not come back to
Minneapolis should be disciplined with a suspension without pay for at least
two weeks.He violated Tony's Constitutional rights. If Chief Dolan was on hand,
observed these actions, and allowed them to happen, he also should be severely
disciplined.
In my estimation the officers in St.Paul this weekend were attacked by some
protesters in their childish "Ninja Turtle" outfits. Those officers showed
complete restraint. Those attacking "ninjas" should have been hunted down and
dealt with in the manner described by Tony. The same is true of the "bike cops"
who used their bikes as a fence. Great professionalism. However, there are
officers on the Minneapolis Police Department who are not professionals,
Officers who think they must be abusive to the public to show they have POWER,
and control. Those officers should be weeded out immediately. Their actions
breed a disrespect for police officers and the law. They also create a climate
that is dangerous for good police officers and a disrespect for the law in
general.
Part of that problem is the "Garrison" nature of much of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
Officers who come from outside our community, live outside our community, and
come to Minneapolis to "Work". Also officers who have become a part of the "COP
Culture".
A culture that celebrates such macho actions by some police officers.
A prime example of which Cop Culture is the "professional courtesy" that is
extended to police officersby other police officers. This "Professional
Courtesy" says that they wink at the misconduct, and breaking of the law by
other officers. Want to not get a ticket for speeding, show a police I.D.
Assault someone and not be arrested, show a police I.D. Need a ride home after
being stopped for driving while drunk, show a police I.D. It all adds up to a
culture of being "Above the Law" for police officers. It is a culture that must
be stamped out in Minneapolis. The change in that culture must start with the
policeleadership. That change begins with Chief Dolan. It IS his responsibility
to see that those working under his command are obeying the LAW. Not just laws
they want to, but ALL laws. If not we need a new police chief. Simple as that.
The other problem we have is the idea that OUR police officers are under the
command of someone else from some other jurisdiction. Those officers first
responsibility is to the people of Minneapolis. They have NO status as police
officers without that authorization. It should be the responsibility of their
commanders to strongly demand that they MUST not break the law. And if
commanded to do so by outside forces, even if it is the President of the United
States himself, they are NOT to do so on pain of being fired by Minneapolis, or
prosecuted by Minneapolis. There simply is no excuse for anything else.
BTW, any police officer who is breaking the law has forfeited any rights as a
police officer. This includes all traffic laws if a siren and lights are not
on. Assault is a good example. Any police officer who illegally assaults
someone can be placed under "Citizens Arrest". And what ever force is necessary
may be used to "arrest" the actions of that individual. Of course with
"professional courtesy" I can assure you that doing so will get you either shot
or severely beaten by any and all officers answering your call.
Another problem that we have in the abuse of police power is the restraining of
individuals and then "letting them go". This is a tactic that is used to avoid
lawsuits for "Unlawful Arrests", and "Unlawful Imprisonment". Police officers
are now taught this tactic as legitimate. It is not. If you ask to freely leave
a place and an officer will not allow you to, you are under arrest. Arrest
literally means to "Arrest" your freedom of movement. If you ask an officer if
you are under arrest and the officer says no, then you can leave.How can
someone be charged with resisting arrest ifthey are NOT "Under Arrest". If an
officer refuses to allow you to leave you are "Under Arrest". In the United
States there is no such thing as holding someone for a few hours without their
being under arrest.
Even though I hate to have spurious lawsuits that tax payers must pay (and
taxpayers are the true victims) I hope that Tony Webster will pursue this
situation. It is grievous enough to warrant an outside investigation. If for no
other reason than to change the "Police Culture" of our State and City. There
is NO excuse for the actions as described by Mr. Webster, if they are true.
Minnesota prides itself on the standards and "professionalism" of its police
officers, we need to not just insist, but to demand that those "professional
standards" include ethics of NOT being above the law, but as servants of the
law.
Jim Graham
The following "Wise Saying" pretty much describes both bad police officers as
well as the "politically correct" ninja turtle wanna-bees" this week.
- "Why is it the Mongols of this world always tell us they're defending us
against the Mongols?" -
I agree with almost everything oulined here by Mr. Graham. I double the
wish that Tony Webster pursues this vigirously (not sure about the spelling
of that one). However, i'm not sure he'll get far in that court. This needs
to be played out in the court of public action. Dolan's actions were
obnoxious in the extreme, most definetly unprofessional, and unethical. But
unlawful, i'm not sure. His good buddy who flipped Tony off, the same;
obnoxious, unprofessional, unethical and add abuse of power, but not
illegal.
We all need to stand behind Tony and demand a thorough investigation and
then appropriate action. Here's where the Mayor and Council people need to
take action. Tony and a few other poster children of state power abuse
should organize, clearly articulate their experiences in the frame of power
abuse and we should help in anyway we can. Organizing and citizen action is
the answer here.
caty royce
bancroft
Regardless of what people think of what's been happening in St. Paul
- this is clearly a police riot that occurred in Minneapolis. I look
forward to the acknowledgement of that from the various politicians
that read this list (it may take a while, but I'd like to see it).
Furthermore, I would like to see the charges that are brought for the
criminal assaults carried out by our police department. It's too
early to tell what all of them should be, but I would hope that the
organizers of the police riot are charged the same as the organizers
of the protests in St. Paul. I understand that eight of them are
facing charges for felony Criminal Syndicalism. Perhaps that's the
same charge that should be levied against Tim Dolan (or whoever is
truly in charge in Minneapolis).
Jim McGuire
Como
Yes...
I can attest to the fact that there were many many cops in
riot gear well before the concert...and that they were standing behind
the Target Center. I grabbed a rental car downtown and went by City
Center, turning right in between Target Center and new Twins stadium.
I thought it was very odd actually.
I
will say that the goal of the 50 more cops campaign was deterrence by
presence in the neighborhoods (a real effect even the mayor agreed with
at one point). I have a libertarian streak in me and just the presence
of that much force lining the street in full riot gear seemed strange
to me and almost silly (I also was wondering just who was in the
neighborhoods). I cannot plausibly explain why they were deployed
across so many blocks so early.
I like the rank and file but the
Chief really needs to shape up a bit. If he wants to show off glitter
than have a parade. Between concocting strange rules about uses of
police stations (which the rank and file thought silly), and showing
off shiny riot gear, this is really silly.
Convention:
I
am very anxious to see the economic impact results from the convention.
I suspect the numbers confuse gross versus net and about as good as a
baseball stadium. I can't believe we subsidize these things, even if I
am obviously not a supporter.
Peter Tharaldson
CD5 Chair IPMN
Loring Park
Jim McGuire: "Perhaps that's the same charge that should be levied against Tim
Dolan (or whoever is truly in charge in Minneapolis)."
For the RNC days, the FBI Agent in charge is the same one who was in charge in
Denver. He controls all the 3,000 some police troops dealing with the Twin
Cities during the RNC.
In order to justify the $50 million in federal tax money, there have to be a
steady stream of "riots" to be quelled. From the run up to the RNC on Monday,
there had to be bad guys to be fingered. It is abundantly clear that one target
of the FBI/Homeland Security is the press.
The first hit from the police state conditions was last Friday: the three
videojournalists from Glass Bead in NYC stopped in NE Minneapolis and their
equipment and clothing confiscated. Glass Bead documents police behavior during
mass demonstrations. The next was on Saturday afternoon when the Ramsey County
Sheriff invaded Mike Whelan's house looking for I Witness videojournalists who
also document police behavior during mass demonstrations. In both above cases
police confiscated cameras, cell phones, and notebooks. The next was Amy
Goodman of Democracy Now and her producer and camera woman. They were put in
jail. Then Tony whose camera was disabled.
Yesterday, it was revealed that there were two FBI agents and one undercover
who had been in the RNC Welcoming Committee for a year. Therefore, it becomes a
question of who suggested the "plan" for disrupting the RNC--the welcoming
committee or the feds?
See the pattern?
On 9/4/08, WIZARD MARKS <email obscured>> wrote:
> See the pattern?
Not really. For one, I don't think the cops that arrested Goodman had
any idea who she was. Y'all seem to think she was arrested because of
who she was. Unless you are a hard core liberal, Amy Goodman is just
another name. So, for people on this list, sure she is a well known
figure. But for the rest of us in the area, Nick Coleman is more
recognizeable.
John Harris
webber-camden
Hey! I'm in sync with Jim Graham, I think. If half of what Tony
Webster has related to us is true, we need some major tweaking in MPD
that might well start with showing the door to Chief Tim Dolan;
whether that door is one of change or to the exit might be up to
Dolan, et al. We're not in the 1968 Chicago DNC league, yet, but the
attitudes are there, and not the least on the part of law
enforcement. Minneapolis is never going to maintain any sort of
reputation as mecca for Yuppy-dom and cool greenness if this stands.
I think the RNC has released the inner fascist in quite a number of
MPD officers, but also recognize from what day to day contact I have
that our police force is largely a group of respectful, highly
trained professionals. I'd like to think what I'm seeing and reading
are are aberrations, but I know that they are not exactly rare; some
folks can turn the professionalism off like a switch and become the
monsters they really are -- these are the ones who need to change or go.
I posted a blow-it-up-and-start-over solution floating around before,
a Metropolitan force to replace problematic municipal PDs and throw
their respective associations into disarray, but the far better
solution would be for good cops to step up and take control of their
union organizations and address these problems. I hope the RNC
serves, at least, as a catalyst for burning out the real problems in
law enforcement; how it is done can be grass roots or rank and file
sorts of change or the howitzers can come out to blow things up and
rebuild, sort of like what is going to happen to the GOP come
November when we have democratic (note small 'd') control at the
Department of Justice and one of these days, the Ramsey County
Sheriff's office (SPPD might need a little look see as well given the
the alleged Rage Against the Machine concert comments of their chief).
What difference does it make whether the police knew who Amy Goodman is? The
question is whether she did anything to justify an arrest. On the video of the
incident I sure didn't see what justified the arrest. What happened that I
didn't see? And, while the police may not have known who she was, they
certainly knew she was an accredited journalist. Her credentials were ripped
from her during the arrest.
Since a lot of these events have been captured on various government and
private security cameras, folks who want a fair analysis of what happened here
and elsewhere should submit data practices requests immediately and seek
promises from city and police officials that no video records will be destroyed
or let automatically erase after X time. Perhaps the officer paid with your tax
dollars giving you the finger is on tape.
Steven Clift
Standish-Ericsson
Good posts all.
For those others who have uncritically accepted what we've been hearing from
the mainstream media, I'd like to point out the following: The RNC Welcoming
Committee scheduled a press conference -- which they referred to as an
"unmasking" -- this morning to address the claims of criminality and
"terrorism" that are being bandied about by the authorities, and to make
themselves available for photo ops and questions from the press.
The response? The police closed the Smith High Bridge, and reporters have been
trying to find alternate routes to get to the press conference. Wonder what the
reports will look like, if they show up at all?
Rick Kelley
Whittier
> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:18:09 -0500
> To: <email obscured>
> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Arrested in Downtown Minneapolis, Chief Dolan Targets
Journalists
According to Minnesota Independent, Chief Dolan says "I haven't gotten any complaints" about how people were arrested. It was basically uneventful for us." Story is at: http://is.gd/2dRW
I think Steven is onto something here by asking individuals to seek
promises that data will not be erased. I however think the concept
should be expanded to the point of releasing all video footage into
the public domain.
Specifically, all video from both Downtowns, starting Friday August
29th at 10:00 p.m. extending through to Sunday September 7th at 10:00
pm. should be posted for all to see.
Chief Dolan has stated things are "uneventful for us," lets take a
look at how this claim stacks up against reality. In addition, this
will be useful for corroborating or disproving Harrington's claim of
announcing an intention to use tear gas (and by extension, create an
uncontrollable stampede causing many to be needlessly injured).
CC: Elizabeth Glidden, Ward 8 City Council Rep.
Dan Dittmann
Powderhorn
Begin forwarded message:
I overwhelmingly appreciate everyone's contributions to the discussion
and off-list advice and support.
I find it quite strange that Chief Dolan's memo and press conference
state that "102 people were arrested," but "most were not taken into
custody." Well, we obviously have different definitions of "custody."
When I'm forced to sit with my hands on my head and then handcuffed,
I'm going to assume I'm not free to leave, and that I'm "in custody."
I also think to call 102 arrests "basically uneventful" is disgusting
and without regard to freedom and due process. Just because officers
outnumber protesters doesn't make the event any less significant for
those involved, and it doesn't change the fact that it gave 102 people
court dates, a criminal record, and will hardly be worth the cost of
officer overtime and court. Court dates have been scheduled in late
October for those arrested and released.
"The bottom line with those individuals is that they wanted to be
arrested," he told the Minnesota Independent. That's quite an
assessment to make, and I don't think the Chief is in a position to
speculate on why protesters acted the way they did. Does anyone
really want to be arrested? I certainly didn't.
Chief Dolan admits that the crowd was "generally well-behaved," and
stated that they "...were not damaging property" and "...were not
assaulting anybody." He feels ample warnings were given to the crowd.
I've watched video reports that show the warnings being given, but
they were only audible from a close distance to the police, and I
tried to keep my distance for most of the evening. I only learned
through word of mouth that it was declared an "unlawful assembly," but
the crowd split up and went down the street. I heard no other
announcements until "everyone at this intersection, you are under
arrest."
Police made no announcements at the arrest site. It was quite simply
a surround, attack, and arrest scenario. If you're inside the
surrounded area -- which included innocent bystanders -- you were
under arrest.
I received an e-mail from the Chief, who claimed, "I sent an officer
to check. He did an (sic) told me that you were in journalism
school." At no point did I make any statement that I was in
journalism school (I'm not), and no officer would even bother to look
at my media credentials. Why can't he identify the officer he
allegedly sent to talk with me? Why was I told later that I should
just show credentials in court and it would "probably get dismissed."
I specifically asked for Chief Dolan and he was the one who
approached, so why didn't he take the initiative to follow up?
He later writes, "From what I observed, you were treated fairly and
professionally." From what I observed, after everyone was rounded up,
he was nowhere near the arrests because he was talking with the media
on camera. Maybe I'm understandably getting a bit to personal here,
but how could he observe fair and professional treatment when he's
busy showing off his 102 prizes?
There are a lot of questions about this event, but I urge everyone not
to blindly accept the fact that 102 people were arrested in Downtown
Minneapolis as anything other than a significant police action.
And yet, it happens again. I've read that over 200 people are being
arrested in Saint Paul at Sears near the Capitol and another police
entrapment action on the Marion Street bridge. I'm sure some deserve
to be arrested, but it was another case of police surrounding and
arresting everyone present. That's not okay with me.
Tony Webster
Loring Park
612-424-5426
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Dan Dittmann
I've been reading accounts of mass arrests of journalists, peaceful protesters, medics, legal observers, and bystanders all week, and it's clear there's a pattern here. Not only do police appear to be rounding up anyone and everyone in their path, but they appear to search out and provoke confrontation. And yes, they're targeting journalists, the watchdogs of democracy. As the week comes to a close, I'd like to raise the question about what we can do for all those arrested AND what we can do about police behavior (I don't harbor any illusions about "restoring" what I think was always the veneer of civility to begin with: there have been ample illustrations of local police misconduct prior to the RNC actions). But I'm trying to sort out a place to start, and I hope that list contributors will chime in. I want to know first of all what my local officials' roles were in allowing police to trample people's civil rights (not to mention their bodies). I fully understand that the FBI, Homeland Security, et al played a role here, but they couldn't have done so without local approval or at least compliance. We elected them; we need to hold them accountable. Someone is ultimately responsible for police protocol here, and we need to question the protocol, not just the behavior of individual officers (remember, it's not "misconduct" if they're simply following orders--it's the orders themselves we must call into question). When I phoned the Minneapolis Police Department this week to complain about police gassing and then rounding up folks on Shepard St. (across from the Science Museum) on Monday, the person I spoke with suggested that as far as she was concerned, it was unfortunate that bystanders were swept up in police actions, but that unless police had acted "inappropriately" (read: against protocol) and unless I had badge numbers, little would be done (try getting a badge number of a robocop). I'm sorry, but firing percussion grenades and tear gas into large groups of people and then detaining and arresting them is NOT OK. Not anywhere, but this is my city, and so I have a personal stake in what happens. And I'm sick of hearing about the few people who broke windows and engaged in small acts of violence, as though that's an excuse for what happened to everyone else. As Chris Stellar reported in the MN Independent, there were fewer arrests and felony charges--yet far more property damage--in the UM hockey riots a few years ago (http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/7499/the-fire-last-time-serious-damage-fewer-felonies-at-u-of-m-hockey-riots). Kind of puts it all in perspective, doesn't it? Charley Underwood has called for a kind of truth-and-reconciliation commission to investigate police actions over the last week. Maybe that's a start. Each one of us who either witnessed or was involved in police actions needs to file an official complaint with the St. Paul and Minneapolis police departments (here's the number I have for St. Paul: 651-266-5740. MPD Internal Affairs is 612-673-3074). As I've suggested above, I'm not optimistic that doing so will make a huge difference, but it might at least prevent the arrogant police chiefs of both cities from crowing that no one has complained. (File a report with the National Lawyer's Guild and Coldsnap Legal Collective, too--you'll certainly get better treatment and perhaps more results. You can email the NLG at http://www.nlgminnesota.org/contact; Coldsnap's hotline is 651-356-8635.) And while I'm at it, let me just say "Thank you, thank you, thank you" to Dave Thune of the St. Paul City Council. His deep concern for the Twin Cities and his sense of personal frustration have come through clearly in his many public comments and writings. His has been a lone voice of reason in St. Paul. Liz McLemore Bancroft
Liz, thank you for asking exactly the right question. First of all I
want to know WHY we have heard precious little from most council
members and our mayor in the wake of all that has gone on. It seems
important to me that we let our elected officials know that we hold
them responsible for not only their actions in all of this, but also
their inaction in all of this. It is not sufficient to wring their
hands and act like they did not know or that it was out of their hands.
I suspect what might be most productive is helping them to understand
that there is a possibility of redemption but only by taking an
aggressive role is getting to the truth of what happened here over
the last several days AND holding officers and the chief accountable
for any misdeeds.
Frankly, I am not optimistic. I have felt we have somehow slipped
back to the sixties in all of this. I am deeply offended by the
frequent use of excessive force. I am offended by the idea that the
RNC will pay the first 10 million dollars of lawsuits against the
police, which gives a sort of wink and nod to this sort of excess. I
am offended that we have a law that equates blocking busses with
terrorism. Anyone ever attend a good labor protest? I guess now those
are terrorism too. And not doing it, just talking about it? Something
is terribly wrong here.
Young Keith Smith was treated abysmally by police. 17 years old, I
have known him since he was 11. He is a good kid, and deeply
dedicated to peace and non-violence, and yet he was covered with
lumps and bruises and the imprints of footprints by police on his back.
Right now I am angry, and want to see some people lose their jobs. So
members of council, start speaking soon and often and let us know
what you plan to do about all this. You've got a lot of angry people
like me on your hands now.
Jessica Wicks
Sheridan, NE Mpls
Tony Webster's first post in this thread has the following:
Minneapolis Police, simply by presence (which is a use of force according to
the use of force continuum) provoked the crowd to protest.
I'll summarize by stating that Sheriff Bob Fletcher WANTED there to be a
protest, so he worked with Minneapolis Police to CREATE the protest. In fact,
he worked with MPD and SPPD and someone decided to bring in the Commander from
LAPD who was in charge during the last protest back in 2000. Because they
handled it so well? Cops instigated rioting simply by surrounding the area --
many people agree with me on this.
I call on Police administration to take responsibility for inciting riots
and, his post also has the following:
I'm most disappointed by all of this because I'm so supportive of the
Minneapolis Police Department and initiatives like CCP/SAFE and beat patrols. I
am in complete support of many of the MPD's goals when it comes to dealing with
street-level narcotics, gangs and livability crimes. I think that police
officers are underpaid and under-appreciated for the difficult and risky work
they take on, and I have a lot of respect for them. It has to be hard to solve
other people's problems day in and day out.
(end of excerpts from Tony Webster's first post in this thread)
Tony says "I have a lot of respect for them."
Yet, Tony says they were inciting riots just because they were there. Tony
says Sheriff Fletcher wanted a riot. Apparently Tony is only supportive of the
police when it suits his convenience.
The police agencies had excellent evidence that major disruptions and major
property damage were planned to take place during the RNC. Almost all of the
plans were thwarted.
It is quite sad that "professional" trouble makers show up at at events like
the RNC. It causes a real problem for legitimate, well-behaved protesters.
Compromises had to be made. The police agencies did a marvelous job.
Tony, you need to have a little cheese with that whine. Then, take a look in
the mirror. You will see what the problem is.
And, that goes for a few others who post on this forum. You are upset about
crime, but you whine when the police do take action.
We are lucky we even get people to work as police officers in the City of
Minneapolis. Too many years of poor support from city council members and too
many years of poor support from far too many city residents.
Neil Carlson
Loring
Neil Carlson: "The police agencies had excellent evidence that major
disruptions and major property damage were planned to take place during the
RNC. ... And, that goes for a few others who post on this forum. You are upset
about crime, but you whine when the police do take action."
I think Tony was mistaken, but only in that he aimed his criticism at the wrong
target. It is the guy in charge, an agent from the FBI, with support from the
GOP, who wanted trouble. Trouble justifies the need for $50,000 worth of time
and toys for local police departments. Trouble plays on the fears of the
Republican base. It is the nature of a political convention to play on the
emotions of the attendees. The work of a convention is to choose among a pool
of wannabes: McCain had no challengers. Nor did Obama by the time the DNC
arrived in Denver. Both conventions were really anointings.
Yesterday, the TV news reported that three people were undercover in the RNC
Welcoming Committee for either a year or two years (depending on which TV
station was reporting). When that is known, and given past practice by the FBI
and other agencies of police, the question becomes who initially suggested that
the RNC-WC make caltrops, decide to block buses, decided to break windows.
Police entities do not have clean hands in situations like this week's RNC
demonstrations.
Yes, people are upset about crime and they have every right to be. They have
every right to be upset about police committing the crimes. People have the
right to expect that police personnel will exercise restraint and exercise good
judgment. What we have seen in this past week is police operating on a police
state plan which took them away from their duties at the behest of a political
party.
People were maced trying to get out of the way. People were rounded up and sent
to jail, giving them a record, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Medics were rounded up and sent to jail for trying to attend to injuries.
Reporters, first the independents and then even the TV and radio stations were
jailed even when they had identification around their necks. Employees of the X
were jailed. For cryin' in a bucket, a MN delegate was rounded up. Why
shouldn't we be outraged? We have a right to expect professional behavior out
of police personnel. We are asking them to separate the wheat from the chaff,
that's not too much to expect of seasoned peace officers.
Disgusting and disheartening.
But yet if you read the right-wing comments, say, on the Star Tribune's
website, you'll see many who think the protesters were all (pick one or more)
criminals, punks, Communists, hippies, whiners, unemployed, unkempt, scum,
terrorists, hypocrites, anti-American, unappreciative of the best civil rights
and the best country in the world (dammit!), trouble-makers, idiots, etc. etc.
ad nauseum, -- AND that they got what was coming to them, or worse, got treated
far too well and should have had their skulls cracked open. It's that kind of
public opinion, even if a minority, that allows this kind of thing to happen
and repeatedly (see the 2008 DNC in Denver, WTO in Seattle, 2004 conventions,
and elsewhere). Law enforcement have been perfecting their oppression
techniques over the years.
After spending the last 2 years living in Germany and observing Europe close
up, I've got news for those who think we have more rights here than anywhere
else: we don't. This kind of thing would never happen in Germany. For the
most part, police there are almost always respectful, professional, courteous
and "protect and serve". It's enough to make me want to move back -- to a part
of the world that's actually civilized.
Tony Webster wrote:
> On Wednesday night I was arrested after the Rage Against the Machine
> concert at the Target Center. I am an independent and contract
> photojournalist and did not attend the concert and I'm not affiliated
> with any protest groups. Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher and Saint
> Paul Police Chief John Harrington have been telling the media that
> Wednesday night's Rage Against the Machine concert was going to be
> crazy, and that protests would surely ensue. I arrived about 45
> minutes before the concert got out. Officers were already lining
> Hennepin and 1st Avenues in full riot gear, waiting for the concert to
> get out. Before it got out, there were mounted cops lining the
> streets and cops with large wooden batons all around.
>
> <snip the rest of the long story>
Mark Anderson:
Thanks Tony for this story. Most of the RNC anecdotes I've heard about
have so much spin that I have no idea where the exaggeration ends and
the truth begins. Your tale, however, has the ring of truth. But that
doesn't mean I agree with all your conclusions.
I don't see why you should get special treatment from the cops because
you are a "journalist." Why should you get a pass from being arrested
over an ordinary citizen who is an observer like you, even if they don't
label themselves a journalist? It is true that your camera and various
press cards are evidence that you were just watching, but the cops
certainly can't let be a certain pass to avoid arrest, or else the
rowdies would also carry the same accessories.
On Almanac yesterday, the St Paul police chief said that the cops did
indeed arrest numerous journalists when they picked up groups of people
causing problems. He said he had warned the journalists that this could
happen if they were around the problem groups. Apparently the cops
apprehend the whole group in the problematic area, and then sort out who
is to be charged later. I presume the police consider the field of
action to be too chaotic to sort out the good guys from the bad guys, so
they do it later in a controlled environment. That sounds reasonable to
me. But I am admittedly ignorant of how these things work, because I
generally try to avoid being in the middle of riots, and so don't have
personal experience. Does anyone have any counter arguments that the
police should act differently?
I am not saying the apprehended journalists are at fault either, because
they need to be in the middle of the action. But they need to know that
bad things can happen when they put themselves in high-conflict
situations, and not blame other folks when things don't turn out well.
Back to your story, Tony. I think you were pretty lucky not to be
arrested. In that regard, I think the cops treated you well.
Not to say there wasn't plenty of bad behavior on the part of the cops
in your story. Certainly the cop who gave you the finger was being
unprofessional. I don't see it being grounds for firing, but he should
have a reprimand put in his file if you can figure out who did it. The
guy should also be re-trained in dealing with such situations, since
insulting citizens is not the way to calm down the crowd.
The worst action of the police was their attempt to take your camera
memory cards. The police should never try to take recording devices --
it gives the impression that they have something to hide. But at least
you were able to keep them in the end.
Perhaps Minneapolis should reimburse you for the broken lens. But it is
hard from your description to tell how the broken lens happened. It
depends how volatile the situation was and what was the ratio of
citizens to police. In a riot or near-riot situation, the first
priority of the police is to maintain control. That may result in some
rough treatment and jostling, which is completely justifiable by the
cops if they need to do so to maintain control in a tough situation. I
don't know if that was the situation you were in, but I can imagine it
being that way, because your narrative describes near-riot conditions.
Maybe you should write off the damage to your camera as simply a hazard
of your work.
In summary, it's too bad that you were treated badly by the cops, but
that doesn't mean the cops made major errors in the situation. When
things are going nuts out on the street, it's going to be dangerous to
be there, either as a participant or as an observer. And some of the
danger will come from the cops, even if they do a perfect job. They
didn't do a perfect job, but it didn't sound as if they did such a bad
job. Your experience was just a hazard of your job.
"On Almanac yesterday, the St Paul police chief said that the cops did
indeed arrest numerous journalists when they picked up groups of people
causing problems. He said he had warned the journalists that this could
happen if they were around the problem groups. Apparently the cops
apprehend the whole group in the problematic area, and then sort out who
is to be charged later."
But where is the legal, constitutional justification for such mass arrests?
People are supposed to be arrested when they commit a crime, not just because
they are "around problem groups".
The effects of this are:
- intimidation of the journalists
- stopping them from filming the actions of the police
- uncomfortable physical restraint for hours, confiscation (and sometimes
damage) of their equipment
- finally, release without being charged with any crime, as an obvious attempt
to avoid later false arrest lawsuits. I don't think Judges will go accept this
in Court -- at least I hope not. (Though as a taxpayer, I'd be better off if
they did.)
Tim Bonham wrote:
> "On Almanac yesterday, the St Paul police chief said that the cops did
> indeed arrest numerous journalists when they picked up groups of people
> causing problems. He said he had warned the journalists that this could
> happen if they were around the problem groups. Apparently the cops
> apprehend the whole group in the problematic area, and then sort out who
> is to be charged later."
>
> But where is the legal, constitutional justification for such mass arrests?
>
> People are supposed to be arrested when they commit a crime, not just because
they are "around problem groups".
>
>
Mark Anderson:
I don't understand what the constitution has to do with it. What
constitutional rule are they breaking? When the journalists and others
are apprehended, the police haven't yet figured out who caused the
disturbance. There certainly is no constitutional ban on arresting
people that later turn out to be innocent.
In a riot, the cops don't have the luxury of picking out the folks who
are doing the wrong-doing and arresting them one at a time. If there
are fifty people being destructive and fifty people just watching, the
police don't have the time or personnel to stop one person at a time.
The police must first herd all 100 people into one confined area, to
stop the activity of the fifty culprits.
I certainly don't know whether the situation warranted such behavior by
the police in all or most of the RNC anecdotes discussed. But it is
silly to suggest there are no situations where the police could be
acting entirely appropriately and still harm innocent bystanders. It is
the nature of riots that they are chaotic violence, and it isn't easy to
stop such things. Sometimes the cops have to act rough to bring them
under control. It certainly sounded like the conditions described by
Tony Webster were at least close to such a situation. It may be fun to
slam cops for how they control crowds, but it isn't fair to set up
impossible conditions. Maybe there's a reason I've never heard of a
riot without someone complaining about the behavior of the cops.
On Sep 10, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Tim Bonham wrote:
> "On Almanac yesterday, the St Paul police chief said that the cops did
> indeed arrest numerous journalists when they picked up groups of
> people
> causing problems. He said he had warned the journalists that this
> could
> happen if they were around the problem groups. Apparently the cops
> apprehend the whole group in the problematic area, and then sort
> out who
> is to be charged later."
>
> But where is the legal, constitutional justification for such mass
> arrests?
>
First Amendment rights have been continuously eroding since Granada
or perhaps some other point after the Viet Nam war. The right of the
people to know through the work of a free press is indeed a right. We
will learn more about the Reagan years as administrative powers have
built up. In the Granada instance, the press were locked out and we
let it happen.
Local government, particularly the police, have to be trained in the
First Amendment. Our press (and I do see the arguments saying
bloggers are not journalists) must be protected and free to enter any
situation and report to the public.
There is no justification for arresting reporters with press
credentials. None whatsoever.
Laura
Southeast/Como
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
Mark Anderson's commentary is one of an armchair programmed supporter of the
system who obviously did not see for himself what happened in the streets.
While I cannot see an excuse of police arresting everyone indiscriinatey
including even those obviously there to report even during a "riot", it
should have been obvious to anyone there that the police were not threatened
in any way during events in St. Paul that would have excused any false
arrests. There were not acts of violence directed against police. In fact
almost all action in the confrontation was limited to nonviolently occupying
the streets. The total acts of property destruction can be coutned on one
hand, so if they happened in any specific incident, it would be clear it was
the act of isolated people which would not justify the police going after a
group. In the vast majority of incidents where journalists and other
bystanders were arrested, there was nothing going on that could be defined
as a riot - except of course the extremely violent actions of the police
themselves.
To take this opportunity to address the responsibility of elected officials
further, any elected officials who backed the police should be out. What
the Mayors did for the conventionis far far worse than Randy Kelly's
endorsement of Bush which led to his overwhelming defeat. That endorsement
was merely an endorsement - an extremely offensive but mostly sympoblic
gesture which had little influence on any events. Coleman and Rybak, and
city council members, however, permitted the Twin Cities to become a
militarized police state where the most basic rights of citizens were
desecrated in service of the national Republican party and the generation of
busienss revenues (which did not materialize anyway).
Jordan Kushner
Golden Valley
On 9/10/08 Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote: >There is no justification for arresting reporters with press >credentials. None whatsoever. Unfortunately, it's trivial to fake this sort of stuff. So the PDs strategy of arresting/detaining everyone seems within the letter of the law. Not that I like this. Here's a bogus press pass: <http://www.charleystough.com/> And another. I may have one of these from the 80s (I forget): <http://www.yunews.com/presscard.html>
Question: Has the law been re-written? Last I heard, there had to be
good cause for an arrest. Walking down a sidewalk does not qualify.
Or even photographing actions going on.
At some point I keep hoping logic will take over here. Search
warrants and massive detentions and arrests of journalists is NOT
business as usual, nor essential to keeping public order. Resisting
non-violently does NOT require tear gas and concussion grenades.
Non-violent walking into a police line waving the peace sign by one
young woman does NOT demand the use of pepper spray. Asking about
your producers when you are readily identifiable as press does NOT
justify address. Lying down on the street, then asking police why
they are there does NOT justify being tackled and stomped and beaten.
As I understand it, police said they would not arrest press that were
"imbedded" with them. Sound familiar? Go through our training, become
comrades in arms, and then we won't arrest you. Minneapolis police
joined in these bizarre actions which have little bearing on the
democratic protections for a free press. Mass arrest just because you
are in the area is NOT sufficient grounds. Normally 36 hours is
allowed to hold someone to get the necessary evidence to hold folks
for a longer period. The assumption is however that the police had
some reasonable cause to believe that person was violating the law to
begin with. This is not what I see happening.
Watch over the weeks and months ahead. There are going to be some big
dollar payouts from law suits stemming from the actions of this past
week. The first 10 million will be footed by the RNC, which also
bothers me more than a little because it removes a layer of
responsibility from the city for ensuring their officers are on their
best behavior. In essence our police forces became rent-a-cops for a
week.
I know one thing. After what I saw, I will no longer have the same
level of trust in MPD. That is a shame really, because I'm not a wild
eyed radical type, nor am I militant in any way. I just no longer
trust them to behave according to the law, which is not asking for a
lot I think.
Jessica Wicks
Sheridan, NE Mpls
Greetings,
I believe the Constitutional basis resides in the 1st, 4th and 14th
amendments.
The right to freely assemble and to express one's views, via picketing or
demonstration,
is expressly allocated in the First Amendment. If any prohibitions occur it
must
be demonstrated that a Clear and Present Danger exists or existed.
If I were feeling better I would go into a much more expansive set of reasons
why
the Police lacked proper authority to conduct mass arrests, but I am rather
under
the weather right now.
Guy Gambill
(Northeast)
We all know the powers that be are going to claim their pre-convention
"raids" garnered dangerous items, so goes today's press describing the
molotov cocktail ingredients they discovered and are using to keep the two
houston thugs. The media continues to bolster its original sin of convering
the diversions of police state arrests by covering the "dangerous" items
that they will claim in their defense of the lawsuits being written up as we
speak, that will be the "clear and present danger."
caty royce
bancroft
Brother Guy, Spoken like a true patriot and veteran, who took an Oath to Defend and Protect the Constitution from All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic and took that Oath seriously. Thank you for that. Of course, the elected officials on the Minneapolis City and St Paul City Councils took that Oath also but seem to have not taken it as seriously. Since the corporate media are twittering away, not informing the public of what really happened, I give you all this. It is an article I just wrote for Op Ed News that highlights what happened and how the local officials betrayed us and the Constitution. It names names and explains just how it happened. The Op Ed News editors just headlined the article. Follow this link to the Op Ed News site. It is titled EXCLUSIVE-Democrats Pre-Authorized Use Of Force At RNC http://www.opednews.com/ Michael Cavlan RN Powderhorn
On Sep 11, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Jessica Wicks wrote:
> Question: Has the law been re-written? Last I heard, there had to be
> good cause for an arrest. Walking down a sidewalk does not qualify.
> Or even photographing actions going on.
Not the law, but administrative powers that have been enlarged. These
must be challenged.
>
>
>
> As I understand it, police said they would not arrest press that were
> "imbedded" with them. Sound familiar?
During Desert Storm, the major press and networks agreed to
"imbedding." They did this by means of a signed memorandum. Since
then, the administration, and now we see the local authorities have
adopted this phrase. It has no meaning beyond Desert Storm, except
that it has continued into the Iraq war. Why it has trickled down to
local authorities, must be examined, and challenged.
Memoranda do not have the power of the Constitution. We weaken
ourselves when we do not challenge ad hoc municipal powers that have
no basis in law.
Laura
Southeast/Como
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
cathleen royce wrote: > We all know the powers that be are going to claim their pre-convention > "raids" garnered dangerous items, so goes today's press describing the > molotov cocktail ingredients they discovered and are using to keep the two > houston thugs. The media continues to bolster its original sin of convering > the diversions of police state arrests by covering the "dangerous" items > that they will claim in their defense of the lawsuits being written up as we > speak, that will be the "clear and present danger." Given the available evidence, "clear and present danger" doesn't appear to be a very high hurdle. First, The RNC Welcoming Committee was very open about their intention to disrupt the Convention. I assume that you have read the sections of their Web site that talk about attacking the transportation system and bridges. And, the RNC Welcoming Committee appeared to receive a lot of support for their objectives and tactics, both explicit and tacit. Certainly this support was visible on the E-Democracy forums. A few people argued that throwing a brick through a window wasn't violent, and so apparently was an acceptable form of protest. (That this discussion was started by a home owner still puzzles me a bit...) Others argued that WTO Seattle was a good model for a response to the RNC. Fairly early on, the RNC Welcoming Committee got other protest groups to buy into its "diversity of tactics" concept. Apparently, this agreement essentially said: if you don't bother us, we won't bother you. Charlie Underwood seemed to refer to this agreement in e-mail that predicted that the "large" march on Monday would be peaceful, because the Welcoming Committee had promised to keep their activities separate. Second, at least one person, apparently well-known within the anarchist community, was advocating the use of Molotov cocktails, and even testing them. He was later arrested with several assembled Molotov cocktails in his possession. No, he didn't only have the ingredients, he had allegedly actually assembled several. Plus, he had talked about bombing the underground power cables that supply the Xcel Center. See, for example: http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/03/1334659.aspx http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/09/what_did_the_police_know_and_h.shtml This case could be very interesting, if it goes to trial. Informants were used, so this is a chance to learn whether the RNC Welcoming Committee and its supporters were all just dupes of federal agent provocateurs. Third, the raids recovered items that had no use other than to disrupt the RNC. In particular, the two different styles of caltrops have no use other than to puncture pneumatic tires, such as those on cars, trucks, buses and bicycles. You can try to excuse some of the other material found as dual-use, but I don't know of any alternate use of caltrops. By the way, the most famous window-breaking anarchist has been arrested. I know that several on this list had expressed concern that no arrest had been made. http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_10412791 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/08/rnc_charge/ Press reports tie him to the RNC Welcoming Committee. Who will be attending his trial to show their support? Having said all that, yes, we need to be very concerned about our continuing erosion of our civil liberties. But, this episode appears much more muddy, because it really does appear that there was "clear and present danger". The fact that a number of vocal members on this list supported these activities, at the time if not still, probably doesn't help much either.
For anyone who is interested, there was a write up in a counter-terrorism and intelligence publication that is titled "The Lessons from St Paul" ( no, I dont subscribe to these types of publications but my dear dad is retired Naval commander and he forwarded it on, thanks dad) I personally think it sheds some light on why the police and security forces showed up with such force. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/lessons_st_paul - Megan G. Jordan (where we sometimes need some counter-terrorism and we often need some more intelligence)
Thank you Megan and Dad for adding a perspective to this conversation. I
didn't read alot of new material in the article, but this paragraph doesn't
sound like anything we've heard on this list anyway. Of all the folks that
are participating in this discussion that were actually there, i've heard NO
accounts of shooting at police or delegateswith slingshots or the caltrops
actually being used. And we know that most of the 800 arrested didn't do
anything like this, so i guess i decry the inference in that the 800
arressted had acted in such ways as to cause the arrest!
caty royce
bancroft
"However, the fact remains that many of the affinity groups were still able
to launch direct action and block streets with dumpsters, fly signs from
high-rise buildings, deploy dragon sleeve blockades, slash tires, throw
bricks and other items from bridges onto cars, throw caltrops and spike
strips on streets to flatten tires, shoot at police and convention attendees
with slingshots, block delegate buses, assault delegates (physically and
with noxious chemical sprays) and generally create large-scale mayhem and
vandalism. These direct actions resulted in most of the more than 800
arrests during the RNC. These activities clearly showed that not all the
affinity groups had been penetrated or rendered impotent."
The harassment and arrest of journalists started before the RNC events had even
begun. Young journalists from out of state had their equipment confiscated on a
couple of thin pretexts that made the police look very suspect. Coincidentally,
these journalists belong to a collective that recently caught a New York police
officer on video as he ran at a bicyclist participating in the Critical Mass
bike ride in NYC, knocking him off his bicycle and endangering nearby
pedestrians.
The fact that the Mpls City Council recently overturned by a unanimous vote a
number of amendments to official police policy which (among other stipulations)
stated that police could not harass journalists and legal observers nor
confiscate cameras and film, indicates quite clearly the sentiments of the
Council. To be fair, the Council did not know what the amendments were, as
there was no copy of them available to be read and I guess no Council members
were interested enough in the contents to ask. These amendments were overturned
due to the diligence and actions of concerned citizens, and a bit of help from
some Council members. Yet in spite of this, the police found shelter in the
Patriot Act, which allows pre-emptive action against "terrorism" (in this case,
free speech). Look out, the Thought Police have arrived!
T. Salo: "A few people argued that throwing a brick through a window wasn't
violent, and so apparently was an acceptable form of protest. ... The RNC
Welcoming Committee was very open about their intention to disrupt the
Convention. ... RNC Welcoming Committee appeared to receive a lot of support
for their objectives and tactics, both explicit and tacit. "
Actually, I argued that throwing a brick through a window was destructive, not
violent. Meaning that no person was violated, but an inanimate object was
destroyed. If the goal, under the first amendment right of assembly, is to
induce the government to redress grievances, throwing a brick through a window
is counterproductive because it allows the opposition to focus on the brick,
not on the grievances. That's what has happened. With the notable exception of
Trish van Pilsen, the media has focused on the brick, so to speak, not on the
grievances.
I would argue that Homeland Security's plan for St. Paul during the RNC was to
make sure everyone was focused on the brick, rather than on the considerable,
legitimate grievances that the 15,000 or so protestors wanted to have
redressed.
The RNCWC said they wanted to disrupt the RNC by blocking the bridges and, by
that tactic, halting the buses carrying convention delegates. A sit in to block
the buses is hardly a tactic warranting disapproval. Considering that there
were 3,000 or so cops assigned to St. Paul for the convention, blocking the
delegates from attending was unlikely to work.
I'm a firm believer in 'learning by doing.' While I could have predicted that
the strategy would not work, this younger generation has to learn the same
lessons that each previous generation had to learn as ell. In fact, every
generation has to learn just what their government is capable of doing to keep
them from being able to get their grievances redressed.
I question some of the accusations made in the online publication Stratfor.com.
I've heard nothing about bricks or other objects being dropped on cars from
bridges overhead. The caltrops were found, as far as I know, on one site and
there were a very small number which it is doubtful could have stopped a
vehicle. These allegations are made before a true and thorough investigation
has been performed.
I've heard all too much about "buckets" of urine, of which I believe only one
partial bucket was found in a living space above a garage that had no plumbing.
I have heard of feces, but only on the Permaculture bus, which has a composting
toilet. This seems to be an area that has produced outrage among "decent
citizens". My question is why there is so much energy around this rumor. I
suspect it has to do with disrespecting the police, who are supposed to serve
with "courage and compassion". Certainly the only harm throwing pee at officers
could do would be to their egos. This accusation by police has to do with
eliciting an emotional response.
Let's wait for the real facts to come out, including about who the actual
perpetrators were. We cannot rule out the activities of infilitrators. I
strongly believe that the many videos and eyewitness reports will show who the
unlawful were, and they can then be tried in a court of law. Thank goodness for
all the cameras and sharp eyes out there. Shame on the police for hiding their
own identities and trying to destroy evidence.
Jan Nye
Phillips
Please check out Caty's link for a thorough history of the buildup to the RNC by the Welcoming Committee: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/lessons_st_paul. Of course it's biased from the perspective of law enforcement, but it is thorough and detailed. Some of the best histories of the Russian Revolution were compiled by Czarist spies. From my political perspective, certain affinity groups alligned with the RNCWC ultra-lefted and were planning actions that would have seriously damaged the credibility of the peace movement, if the police informant's report is accurate. Throwing a molotov cocktail at a police officer to watch him burn is horrifying, and it won't win friends and influence people or do anything to advance the cause. Ultra-leftists have to understand that when they announce (as they did to FBI informants) rules of engagement that include this kind of intent, they are inviting an equally violent response from the police. However, even if it makes the behavior of the police somewhat understandable, it does not in any way excuse it. It's a tough job, but you are expected to be professional, and you are expected to have some understanding and appreciation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Maintaining balance in a demonstration that is meant to go beyond simple protest is a delicate expression. It's always best if both sides have some idea of what the other side is going to do. I have just published a short book about the demonstrations in 1972 when we built barricades on Washington Avenue and held the street for four days against the Minneapolis Tactical Squad, Mayor Stenvig and the National Guard to protest an escalation in the War in Vietnam (TAKE THE STREETS! is available at Mayday Books, $10.95--always a 15% discount). Some police had to be taken to the hospital for exhaustion, and they laid open some of our skulls, but (as far as I know) no one was permanently damaged or hurt. Protest against the war in the Middle East is not over. There are still people on the Bridge and people protesting at Alliant. The struggle continues. They need our help. Ed Felien Powderhorn
By Golly I think you have it Guy,
Only thing you left out was the 2nd Amendment. It might surprise some, but the
real reason for the 2nd amendment was to insure that the 1st and 4th Amendment
were not abridged. We do seem to ignore that when looking at protection against
misuse of police and military against the civilian population of this country.
The founding fathers could have cared less about "hunting". The Federalist
papers clearly outline what that 2nd amendment was for. Now I do wonder if
those speaking so strongly about the 1st amendment are equally as fervent in
protecting the 2nd.
Having friends and one kid on the line as police officers at the RNC, I am
certainly glad that one was not actively employed. Even though I have those
friends and family I am troubled by some of the mass arrests and have had
arguments about that with those same people. I guess I am a "Constitutional
Conservative" and feel that being a social liberal we need to have strict
adherence to that Constitution. Sadly, a great number of my Democrat Party are
as willing to curtail that Constitution as the far right. Each saying they want
to protect us from the abuse of the other and each willing to take away the
Constitutional rights that protect us from their version of totalitarian rule.
From discussions with those friends I find that our own Terry Yzaguirre's was
probably the best and most unbiased journalism done on the RNC demonstrations.
Her accounts of the protests and the actions of police officers match those of
people who were there. People who I trust to give accurate accounts, not
exaggerated hyperbole.
Guy, hope you feel better soon. Counting on you for that 26th and Penn party.
If you feel better before hand call and we can meet for coffee.
Jim Graham,
- "Why is it the Mongols of this world always tell us they're defending us
against the Mongols?" -
That certainly was not the case from where I sat. I might not have
been able to see what I did see had I not been suffering some health
issues and had to linger behind for a time. But the article did
spark some memories when I would have been considered one of those
radicals though I don't recall the term anarchist being used much
then. See we knew that the FBI was trying to infiltrate during the
Vietnam War protests. They were pretty recognizable actually, and
sometimes we would pump them with all sorts of misleading
information, just to keep them on their toes. I'm guessing our young
world changers of today have not changed that much.
I have heard of one incidence where caltropes were tossed if I am to
believe the media. Arrests there are certainly in order. I saw the
footage of the folks smashing windows. Likewise, no matter what they
say, that is NOT non-violence, borrowing as they did from the Weather
Underground concept that blowing up a building if it did not have
anyone inside was non-violence. In both cases they are wrong.
There was some key wording in that article that jumped out at me.
First that the anarchists were like some sort of organized cohesive
group. They are not. Some are truly non-violent. Others are not.
Also, am I the only one who was disturbed by the wording about how
they were all dressed similarly? Look, I know all sorts of young
people who dress in "anarchist style" because it is cool. What I did
see was a program of arrests based on that kind of profiling. That is
NOT okay. Kind of like assuming all Muslims are terrorists. Or back
in the sixties, if you were young and looked like a hippy you might
be a radical. It just is not so.
One thing I do agree with the article about. There is a core group
that has been playing a cat and mouse game with police since before
Seattle actually. When people violate the law, they should be brought
to justice. The police this time far exceeded those constraints, and
there can be no legal justification for what they did. I will contend
what I did at the beginning of all this. There were perhaps 30
individuals intent on disruption. Considering 800 were arrested
because of the actions of those 30, I would suggest they succeeded
beyond their wildest dreams.
Jessica Wicks
Sheridan, NE Mpls
On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:09 PM, james graham wrote: > Now I do wonder if those speaking so strongly about the 1st > amendment are equally as fervent in protecting the 2nd. > Re: First Amendment --I think the suppression of journalists through arrests may bring prior restraint back to Minnesota. (Arresting and therefore suppressing the press from reporting current news). http://tinyurl.com/0 Cornell University Law School: The United States Supreme Courts first encounter with a law imposing a prior restraint came in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson,47 in which a fivetofour majority voided a law authorizing the permanent enjoining of future violations by any newspaper or periodical once found to have published or circulated an obscene, lewd and lascivious or a malicious, scandalous and defamatory issue. An injunction had been issued after the newspaper in question had printed a series of articles tying local officials to gangsters. While the dissenters maintained that the injunction constituted no prior restraint, inasmuch as that doctrine applied to prohibitions of publication without advance approval of an executive official,48 the majority deemed the difference of no consequence, since in order to avoid a contempt citation the newspaper would have to clear future publications in advance with the[p.1030]judge Laura Southeast/Como Laura Waterman Wittstock President and CEO Wittstock & Associates 913 19th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-387-4915 www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:30:12 -0500,Jessica Wicks wrote:
>I have heard of one incidence where caltropes were tossed if I am to
>believe the media. Arrests there are certainly in order. I saw the
>footage of the folks smashing windows. Likewise, no matter what they
>say, that is NOT non-violence, borrowing as they did from the Weather
>Underground concept that blowing up a building if it did not have
>anyone inside was non-violence. In both cases they are wrong.
Whether smashing *things* is "violence" is a matter of definition.
Nonetheless, there can be no argument that the vast majority of violence
against persons that occurred was perpetrated by the police.
Personally, I believe in individual responsibility (a concept
Republicans also claim to believe in). So I believe that, whatever
"orders" or "training" was involved, each policeman (no less than any
other citizen) should be considered personally responsible for whatever
their own acts were.
Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.