SUGGESTED TACTICS FOR FUTURE PROTESTERS AT BUSH EVENTS

(Please Note: This should not be in anyway considered legal advice, Just My Thoughts On The Issue.)

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 (President Of The United States) visit to New Jersey.

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 main stream media to ignore the arrests of 150 protesters than it is to ignore 9.

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!

After posting this message at www.democraticunderground.com I received this critique from a poster that identified himself as a police officer (from Texas). The provides some insight into how the "thin blue line" thinks about protest actions and it provides some useful hints for future actions.

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)

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.

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 (emphasis added). 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 our 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.

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:

Thanks to DUer jarnocan for this shot of one officer at the scene.

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.

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 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".

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

(Editor's Note: These are both pretty scary looking members of the governmental establishment. Although, if I was going to be tackled running by one of them, I'd take Hillary any day.)

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 is 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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

As you well know I think the arrests were made to intimidate 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.

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.

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?

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 of so many, 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.

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 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.

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.