Teach the police.

[Sterling]

I think a lot of our law enforcement personnel need a better grasp of issues that relate to their place in society and the effect their work has on civilians. Some of them cannot understand why many people fear them and the abuse of the power we give them.

So here is your chance to post pictures of protests, articles about drug forfeitures, private prisons, Wackenhut, whatever. We have some cops here who could really use an introduction to what it looks like on the other side of the baton.

[bpilgrim]

1. EACH 1 TEACH 1 - GRAPHIC

more...
http://images.globalfreepress.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=31

peace

[alexisfree]

2. oh my god!!!!

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. God.....

that looks painful. And damned brutal.

[Sterling]

5. kick.

The cop on our board does not"believe" this kind of thing goes on. Or that the private prison industry holds much influence.

[el_gato]

50. Truth is "policing" is all about maintianing the status quo

the rich stay rich and the poor stay where they belong.
Anybody who challenges that system gets the boot.

[Sterling]

6. "But we did not see what she did to deserve this"

I am sure the police were justified. :eyes:

[TryingToWarnYou]

15. This should be fun...

You are obviously stating that this cop on your board doesnt believe things like what you describe, exists. I contend that you dont ask enough of the right questions yourself, such as "What happened to cause the above listed injury?"

Did the cop just walk up and smack this person? I doubt it.

Was this person fighting the cops and got beat down in the process? Maybe so.

You have to look at both sides.

Ive been in law enforcement for 14 years. There is no cause to beat someone for the sake of beating them. Cops make mistakes all the time and the most common misconception is that they only see things in black and white.

[devilgrrl]

17. This "mistake" was a beauty!

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/23/content_385051.htm

However, before you flame me, I'm aware that the police department took full responsibility: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/fan.death/

What I'm concerned with is exactly what the victim's family is: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/26/national/main651366.shtml

Why that kind of force?

[TryingToWarnYou]

21. The police are allowed to meet force with equal force.

Again, I dont know what precipitated the events, but I can tell you that the cops are not going to walk up to someone, for no reason, with cameras all around and the eyes of the world watching, and whack someone in the head.

[anarchy1999]

34. Go google what happened last year in Oakland.

The cops went and "whacked" people for nothing but a simple protest. It was a 1st amendment issue, that's all. Oh, by the way, the world was not watching. It was not reported on CNN, CBS, NBC or ABC or any of the local networks. Thanks so much, "Tryingtowarnyou". What a moniker, makes me almost decide to leave DU.

[TryingToWarnYou]

43. I wish you guys would get your stories straight

One of you was just telling me that the cops were shooting into the crowds at head level and this was all over TV.

When you all settle on a story, let me know.

Go ahead and leave DU. Its obvious that you arent learning anything and with your moniker, its apparent you wont.

[el_gato]

46. do you have anything of substance to provide

if so please do.

[TryingToWarnYou]

69. Hey, Im just working with what you give me.

If you say one thing and then another, how am I supposed to address the issues we are discussing?

[el_gato]

35. Oh, how very little you know, talk about naive (here's proof)

You are so uninformed.

"I can tell you that the cops are not going to walk up to someone, for no reason, with cameras all around and the eyes of the world watching, and whack someone in the head." - ttwy

For example:

COPS, LIES & VIDEOTAPES

Little did Austin police officer Michael Olsen
know that a random surveillance camera in the
nearby Texas Lottery building would be his
undoing; little did he know that the beating he
gratuitously inflicted on Jeffrey Thornton was
being videotaped, blow for blow.

Thornton and a friend had been on Austin’s 6th Street,
celebrating Juneteenth 2002, when they witnessed Olsen
roughing someone up, seemingly, for no reason. When
Thornton commented to his friend about it, Olsen
overheard him, arrested him, and then beat him
unconscious against the patrol car.

Olsen filed resisting arrest charges against the young man,
whose uncle happened to be another Austin police officer.
The incident prompted an internal affairs investigation
It just so happened that the patrol car video was off during
the beating; this often occurs, by “happenstance,” say the
officers. But the lottery camera was running. Internal
Affairs compared the video against Olsen’s written report,
and found that his report fabricated details. A grand jury
indicted Olsen for filing a false government report, and
TCRP filed a civil rights case on Jeffrey’s behalf.
TCRP Director, Jim Harrington, called Olsen’s conduct
“disgraceful to his position of trust as a police officer.
One wonders how many others Olsen has beaten then lied
about, and were convicted because no cameras were
present to record his brutality and rebut his perjured
testimony.”

http://www.texascivilrightsproject.org/newspub/Fall 2003.pdf

[TryingToWarnYou]

42. Pay attention much?

Re-read what I posted that you replied to and see where you made the mistake.

Ill help you.

A surveilance camera is not the same thing as the media and hundreds of witnesses standing there.

In otherwords, the cops at the demonstrations are well aware that they are being videotaped and watched. The guy in your example didnt know he was being videotaped.

Understand now?

[el_gato]

45. how cute nice little evasion there

the point is he was beating the shit out of somebody for no reason and he got busted and exposed and a liar.

see the parallels?

or is that all just a little too complicated for you?

[TryingToWarnYou]

67. Complicated? Im not the one that doesnt know the difference

between a surveilance camera and dozens and dozens of cameras as well as witnesses in a public place.

I thought I explained it to you?

He was beating the shit out of someone for no good reason and got caught because he didnt know the camera was there. Are you suggesting that if he knew the camera was there that he would have still beat that guy up?

[el_gato]

70. the point is (as is the point of this entire discussion)

is that cops routinely beat the shit out of people for merely questioning their erroneous behavior. They feel they can behave with
impunity and most of the time they can. Every once in a while
a cop is held accountable but that is rare. Take the case of Tulia, TX for example, if it were not for the pro-bono work of someone who actually cared a large group of people would to this day still be wrongfully incarcerated. In the case of the protests in NYC and elsewhere the cops felt free to act with impunity and brutalize protestors because they had the blessings of the state behind them.

For those of us who actually question authority rather than worship it, these ideas are not hard to understand. However, the slave mentality takes it's toll on the minds of those who have never been able to break the chains of that mentality.

[el_gato]

74. oh, that and the fact that the cop lied through his teeth

as usual

[TryingToWarnYou]

78. He beats a guy and you are surprised he lied?

Of course he lied.. he didnt know the camera was there. Just like any other common criminal. Im not defending his actions at all but Im trying to make you understand that when IN PUBLIC, there is accountability, but in private, not so much so.

[el_gato]

83. He got caught but that is a rare case

He was a cop beating up on a citizen with the usual assumptions of impunity.

[TryingToWarnYou]

85. Or maybe he was beating up on the guy because he was an asshole?

Just because the guy was a cop doesnt mean he wasnt just being a dick. You are assuming an awful lot. Im not saying you are wrong, just assuming. You dont know what his motives were nor do you know what his reason was.

[el_gato]

90. ah, you go back to that again (go back a read the article)

the cop was beating the shit out of somebody and someone else commented then the cop started beating up that guy as well, just for
commenting. Maybe it was the cop that was the ASSHOLE? Duh! Ya think?!!


COPS, LIES & VIDEOTAPES
Little did Austin police officer Michael Olsen
know that a random surveillance camera in the
nearby Texas Lottery building would be his
undoing; little did he know that the beating he
gratuitously inflicted on Jeffrey Thornton was
being videotaped, blow for blow.
Thornton and a friend had been on Austin’s 6th Street,
celebrating Juneteenth 2002, when they witnessed Olsen
roughing someone up, seemingly, for no reason. When
Thornton commented to his friend about it, Olsen
overheard him, arrested him, and then beat him
unconscious against the patrol car.
Olsen filed resisting arrest charges against the young man,
whose uncle happened to be another Austin police officer.
The incident prompted an internal affairs investigation
It just so happened that the patrol car video was off during
the beating; this often occurs, by “happenstance,” say the
officers. But the lottery camera was running. Internal
Affairs compared the video against Olsen’s written report,
and found that his report fabricated details. A grand jury
indicted Olsen for filing a false government report, and
TCRP filed a civil rights case on Jeffrey’s behalf.
TCRP Director, Jim Harrington, called Olsen’s conduct
“disgraceful to his position of trust as a police officer.
One wonders how many others Olsen has beaten then lied
about, and were convicted because no cameras were
present to record his brutality and rebut his perjured
testimony.”

[jayfish]

106. Oh Sweet, Does That Mean...

I get to beat the shit out of someone because they are an asshole? ...as long as it's not on tape, I mean.

Jay

[el_gato]

108. apparently

[TryingToWarnYou]

112. Nice twist on words.

Not what was said or implied at all.

Have a great day.

[TryingToWarnYou]

76. I know what the point is.

Cops do not routinely beat the shit out of people for questioning their behavior (erroneous is a bit presumptive). Ive been in LE for 14 years and Ive never seen it. We are all anonymous here and I have nothing to gain by lying to you. Do cops use excessive force sometimes? Absolutely. Are they punished for it? When they are caught, yes (as evidenced by your own video you linked to). You have absolutely no facts to back up your claims. You have your opinion and, like mine, it means diddly.

As for the Tulia incident, that needed to happen. The cop lied his ass off and a lot of innocent people ended up in jail. I havent kept up with the case, but last I heard, the cop was facing some criminal charges now. I dont know if he went to jail/prison. Did he?

You should always question authority. It should never be presumed that authority is correct, always. However, that said, there is a time and place for everything. For instance, arguing with the cop on the side of the road for giving you a ticket is not the time or the place. Going to the court and taking your case before a judge is the right time and place. /example.

[Sterling]

18. I don't have to ask, I already know.

I follow the news, the real news, not CNN but what actually takes place on the streets in our country. Read the articles posted in 17. You will get up to speed. I was actually making fun of the fact I knew someone would post what you did without knowing what happened at the event.

[TryingToWarnYou]

22. You know one side.

And you may not even know that.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone told me they knew what happened during __________ (insert whatever event here).

[not systems]

25. The UN sited the event this happened at a human rights violation...

the Oakland police attacked protesters and dock workers
with guns shooting wooded plugs.

The guns were intended to be fired into the ground
and bounce into the crowd.

They fired directly at head level on film and were show
plain as day on the 5 o'clock news.

Apologists for police violence are so predictable.

[TryingToWarnYou]

27. Im not apologizing for anything.

Learn to read posts you reply to.

Oh and feel free to provide a link to the story you just related.

[not systems]

30. link

from:

http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2004/04/291.shtml

United Nations Report on the Oakland Port Protest

author: Daniel
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights report, which was released Friday, April 2, 2004, includes a summary of last year’s April 7th police attack on protesters at the Port of Oakland.
The U.N. report, released April 2nd, consists of 169 pages of summary reports on human rights violations from the usual suspects such as Guatemala, El Salvador and Saudi Arabia. This year, a page and a half of the report were devoted to repressive actions against the antiwar movement in the United States. The Oakland Police Department received mention.

The report was submitted by Ms. Hini Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Below is the text of the part which reviews the Oakland port protest. It is paragraph 476 on page 151, under the section titled "United States of America"


THE TEXT OF THE U.N. REPORT:

*******************************************************
476. On November 2003, the Special Representative received information concerning the alleged injuries of Erik Shaw and Willow Rosenthal, members of Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW), a network of anti-war organizations. According to the information received, on 7 April 2003, the Oakland Police
Department allegedly fired rubber bullets directly at a peaceful demonstrators reportedly protesting against corporate interests in the war against Iraq at the Port of Oakland, California. This alleged incident was the subject of a letter of allegation by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on 10 September 2003. The police allegedly also used “wooden pellets”, “sting ball grenades”, “shot-filled bean bags” and tear gas against demonstrators, allegedly injuring around 40 of them. While the police reportedly claimed that demonstrators initially began throwing rocks, concrete and steel bolts at them, according to the information received by the Special Representative, the police opened fire without any violent provocation from the demonstrators and only 30 seconds after ordering demonstrators to disperse. According to the information received, Willow Rosenthal was allegedly injured in the back of her calf. It is reported that she went to the emergency room of the Kaiser Hospital, Oakland, for treatment, where she reportedly also filed a complaint against the Oakland Police Department. She has allegedly received no copy of their complaint, despite reportedly having requested one. She was later reportedly diagnosed with a blood clot and underwent surgery on 30 April 2003 and a skin graft on 5 May 2003. Erik Shaw was allegedly seriously injured on his right calf with a wooden pellet. Concern was expressed that excessive force may have been used against persons exercising their right to protest human rights concerns.
***********************************************************

Paragraph 477 reports on the “surveillance of Erik Shaw during his functions as a liaison person between law enforcement agencies and protesters during demonstrations in San Ramon, California on 14 April 2003.” Paragraph 478 reports on police repression during the February 15, 2003 antiwar march in New York City.

The last part of the United States section of the U.N. report, paragraph 479, is titled “Observations,” and, it consists of just one line, which reads:

479. The Special Representative regrets the absence of a response from the Government to her communications.


******************************************************
******************************************************
The United Nations report can be found at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/chr60/94add3AV.pdf

[TryingToWarnYou]

38. Allegations dont = proof

From the U.N. Report

476. On 6 November 2003, the Special Representative received information concerning the alleged injuries of Erik Shaw and Willow Rosenthal, members of Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW), a network of anti-war organizations. According to the information received, on 7April 2003, the Oakland Police Department allegedly fired rubber bullets directly at peaceful demonstrators reportedly protesting against corporate interests in the war against Iraq at the Port of Oakland, California. This alleged incident was the subject of a letter of allegation by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on 10 September 2003. The police allegedly also used "wooden pellets", "sting ball grenades", "shot-filled bean bags" and tear gas against demonstrators, allegedly injuring around 40 of them. While the police reportedly claimed that demonstrators initially began throwing rocks, concrete and steel bolts at them, according to the information received by the Special Representative, the police opened fire without any violent provocation from the demonstrators and only 30 seconds after ordering demonstrators to disperse. According to the information received, Willow Rosenthal was allegedly injured in the back of her calf. It is reported that she went to the emergency room of the Kaiser Hospital, Oakland, for treatment, where she reportedly also filed a complaint against the Oakland Police Department. She has allegedly received no copy of this complaint, despite b]reportedly having requested one. She was later reportedly diagnosed with a blood clot and underwent surgery on 30 April 2003 and a skin graft on 5 May 2003. Erik Shaw was allegedly seriously injured on his right calf with a wooden pellet. Concern was expressed that excessive force may have been used against persons exercising their right to protest human rights concerns.

477. The Special Representative also received information regarding the alleged surveillance of Erik Shaw during his functions as a liaison person between law enforcement agencies and protesters during demonstrations in San Ramon, California, on 14 April 2003 and in Sacramento, California, from 20 to 25 June 2003. According to the information received, on 14 April 2003, Erik Shaw was allegedly photographed several times, during a video interview with a local
journalist, by three men in plainclothes at a demonstration outside a Texaco station in San Ramon, California. One of the three men allegedly photographed the notepad of the journalist, which reportedly contained Erik Shaw’s contact information. Erik Shaw reportedly asked the men whether they were employed by a government agency, stating that they looked like federal officers. One of the men allegedly responded that Erik Shaw had “good intuition”. On 22 June 2003, Erik Shaw reportedly saw six Sacramento police officers disembark from a passenger van and begin searching through the contents of his driver’s flatbed truck. He reportedly asked the officers if they possessed a search warrant. They allegedly replied that the bed of the truck was in plain view and did not require any warrant. He reportedly stated that the officers needed to obtain the necessary judicial authorization, and the officers allegedly returned to their vehicle and drove away.

Ok, lets break it down now.

In your first post you wrote:

the Oakland police attacked protesters and dock workers
with guns shooting wooded plugs.

Attacked? Thats not what the report says.

If you believe what the protesters are saying (alleged, reportedly etc.) then you have to give the same amount of consideration to the other side when:

"police reportedly claimed that demonstrators initially began throwing rocks, concrete and steel bolts at them, according to the information received by the Special Representative, the police opened fire without any violent provocation from the demonstrators and only 30 seconds after ordering demonstrators to disperse."

Odd, I seriously doubt the police, under the eyes of God and everyone, would just arbitrarily attack peaceful demonstrators.

The guns were intended to be fired into the ground
and bounce into the crowd.

Hence the lower extremity injuries inflicted by those devices. Both persons cited in this report received lower leg wounds.

They fired directly at head level on film and were show
plain as day on the 5 o'clock news.

Nowhere does either your activist site or the U.N. say this. Consequently, if this was true, there wouldnt have been wounded protesters, there would have been dead protesters. Those devices, while "less than lethal" are very lethal if used inappropriately, such as on a head. Any force directed at the head is considered deadly force and can only be administered if the life of the officer or another person is at immediate risk.

Apologists for police violence are so predictable.

Yes, and Im certain that all the cops were wrong and some of the protesters werent doing anything wrong at all. Why I bet they all were sitting around with their signs and not throwing rocks, steel bolts and concrete.

[not systems]

41. It happened, I saw it, should I believe my own lying eyes or some...

serial apologist for police abuse.

I believe what I saw and the people who were
brutalized by militarized state thugs.

[TryingToWarnYou]

44. Whoops, hang on there

It was YOUR links I responded to. They were YOUR contributions as PROOF. Now you are saying you saw it? Well which is it? Are you going to go along with the reports you gave me as proof or are you going to go with what you 'saw'? The stories from you guys keep changing....

Again, theres no apologizing for police brutality. The issue is, and has been, whether or not their actions were appropriate. I contend that neither of us was there and we have very little factual information to base any decisions on. Since you likely havent the first clue as to what proper use of force is with regard to large crowd control I dont know how you can say what was appropriate and what wasnt. If you are going by pictures, well, thats fine, but thats not exactly the most reliable means of conveying what actually happened. You get no context with pictures. How about video? Surely theres video of these cops brutalizing everyone there right? Got a link for that? Ill bet I wont see anything being done to the cops right? No rocks thrown, no nothing right?

Ive been a protester myself and I know what happens... Dont sit there and tell me that all the protesters are innocent, because that is bullshit, my friend. The cops have a right to defend themselves from assault just like anyone else. You need to police yourselves at these events...when you see an asshat throwing bottles, rocks etc. instead of doing nothing, STOP HIM. Of course, that might be counterproductive to your mission, but hey, its just a suggestion.

[el_gato]

47. You hang on to your little world view

meanwhile, it is obvious to anybody who doesn't live under a rock that the police serve the interests of the powerful. It has always been this way since the inception of policing.

[TryingToWarnYou]

66. yes, we ignore the poor all the time....

So I guess the cops are supposed to let a mob of hundreds of people just do what they want to a convention who's attendees they dont agree with? If they stop the protesters, they are serving the interests of the powerful?

Ok, I understand now.

[el_gato]

72. They are there to protect the powerful because that is who they serve

NYC mass arrests that resulted in charges dropped for those arrested.
DC arresting and beating people for the purposes of intimidation.
Miami FTAA ring a bell? I doubt it, since you are an obvious partisan for the police state.

Why would the cops be so concerned with having a massive presence at something as arcane as the talks regarding FTAA? Because you (if you are a cop) are nothing but a servant of those in power and thus you do thier bidding.

[TryingToWarnYou]

80. Thats the biggest pile of crap Ive read here in a while...

I serve the taxpayers. The cops are NOT allowed to pick sides. Read my comments about KKK rallies.

Again, are they supposed to just stand by while an angry mob attacks a convention that they disagree with? Can you answer that question?

So, let me try it another way.

Lets say DU was having a convention and FR planned to protest it. What should the cops do? Should they protect you and the other members of DU that might be there or should they just let things go however they are going to go and when FR shows up, do nothing?

[el_gato]

86. only because it conflicts with your world view

Yes, some cops are good but the institution of policing is about protecting the status quo, i.e. serving the interests of those in power.
The very idea of being a cop is about the "respect for authority" but what has that ever meant besides bowing down to those is power.

The scenario that you provided has no basis in reality. Real world examples are necessary because they reflect the situation as it really is. For example, during the run up to the Iraq invasion there were mask wearing cops arresting protestors. Someone was lucky enough to get a picture (I'll try to find it) of the cops with "bush supporter" written on them. The whole point is the cops are a political entity and all conciets of objectivity are false. Again some cops are sympathetic to various causes but the institution itself serves the interests of the elite.

[TryingToWarnYou]

91. My "world view" = wrong Your "world view" = right I understand now.

I would love to see those pics of the cops because I have a really hard time buying that.

My scenario is perfectly valid. It parallels with any other convention/demonstration scenario.

I notice that you keep ignoring my questions about what the cops are supposed to do. Why is that?

You can believe what you want about the police serving the elite. I think its pointless for me to try to change your way of thinking even if I see monumental logical reasons with it.

[el_gato]

99. that's funny since I don't care what you think

You just don't like the fact that not everybody thinks the cops are here to "protect and serve" anybody but those who control them.

Your scenario is make-believe and that is the point.

Your question of "questions about what the cops are supposed to do" is tantamount to asking what is the poor unappreciated dungeon master supposed to do? Cops do what they are disigned to do and that is
protect those in power. That is what they and and that is what they
are supposed to do. Does that make it right? NO.

[el_gato]

104. this image pretty much says it all

[TryingToWarnYou]

111. Still not answering the question I see.

dodge, dodge, dodge.

Ill try one more time and then Im done as its pretty apparent that you are just going to keep repeating the same unsupported nonsense power,protect,elite,power,protect,elite yadda yadda yadda:

Are the police supposed to just stand by while an angry mob attacks a convention that they (the mob) disagrees with?

[el_gato]

113. What question? Is that what you think happened in NYC?

All citizens are an angry mod in the eyes of the police state.
I don't agree with your assumptions in your loaded question.
Do I think the cops should be enablers of a corrupt cabal? No.
But that's what is happening now isn't it. I say we stick to reality here.

[not systems]

51. context

"appropriate"


"asshats"



"non innocent asshats"



There may still be video linked here.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/oak4703.rm

[TryingToWarnYou]

71. Emotive but irrelevant. When you learn what context is, get back to me.

Meanwhile, lets take a look at the video.

Who shot it?

Just bystanders or people affilitated with the protesters or police? (not that I expect you to show me what the cops might have taped, no sir)

While you are looking up context, also look up agenda.

Ok, I finished watching your video. Horrible quality..what is that? 200th generation copy? Cant see any details. Anyway, I wish the actions of the police had been caught on tape. Strange how the majority of the video was dancing, congo beating, singing and other stuff, but when the cops start their action, the video is shot far away and so there is no way to know what transpired prior to the people getting their injuries. How do we know those that got shot with rubber bullets werent being disruptive? We dont. And for that matter how do we know the cops werent being assholes? We dont. Tell your videographer to shoot more video of the police than each other dancing around.

How strange it is that the people with the video cameras were not where the action was. They were where the action ended up (being treated by EMS). Doesnt it stand to reason that if you are expecting trouble from the cops that you would protect yourself with video evidence? This whole concept isnt rocket science. I dont know why you guys didnt catch all that horrible police brutality on tape.

[el_gato]

73. so a bystander or protestor video is biased but not cop videos?

[TryingToWarnYou]

82. No, thats my point

Each side has their own agenda. That is the way of the world.

The video you linked me to was crap and showed nothing.

The police also videotape these events for documentation purposes. I can promise you that all they got on camera was disruptors vs. peaceful protesters.

[el_gato]

87. I did not link to any video

you must be referring to someone else.

[TryingToWarnYou]

92. Sorry, I confused you with someone else. NT

[not systems]

100. dancing, congo beating, singing

All reasons to open up a can of whoop ass on
people exercising their right to protest.

The policy of the police was changed because unlike
you, many rational people can recognize excessive
force and admit mistakes and make changes rather
than defend the indefensible.

I guess we can see where Texas "justice" gets it's reputation.


Not by the book
Oakland cops violated their own rules at port protest
http://www.sfbayguardian.com/37/29/news_oak.html

...
According to documents obtained by the Bay Guardian, the weapons are generally supposed to be aimed at the thighs and buttocks, or "skipped" off the pavement at an angle so they ricochet toward the legs of the crowd.
...
In the opinion of Frank Saunders, a former Santa Monica cop and an expert on police practices, the OPD "was using those weapons inappropriately and indiscriminately. You can't just fire at anything that moves."
...


OAKLAND
Police restrained at protest
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/08/BAGKQ622AA27.DTL

...
But instead of helmeted police armed with weapons, Oakland police stayed out of sight Wednesday except for 10 hostage negotiators acting as liaisons to protesters.

"We're trying to emphasize changes in our policy," said Oakland police Officer Danielle Ashford, department spokeswoman. "For the most part, our officers will be out of sight, out of mind."
...


The BUMP squad
Wanna run over protesters?
Join the Oakland Police Department
http://www.labournet.net/world/0307/oakland1.html

Lawsuits generated by the already infamous police crackdown at the Port of Oakland are starting to flood the courts. So far, at least 46 people have sued the Oakland Police Department, accusing Oakland riot cops of quashing the April 7 antiwar protest with unnecessary and unreasonable force.

One internal OPD document that’s sure to be discussed in federal court is Special Order No. 7088. The order, which has been obtained by the Bay Guardian, lays out the department’s policy of steering police motorcycles into throngs of protesters “to physically push people.”

Running over people with motorcycles wouldn’t appear to be a terribly enlightened form of crowd control which is probably why other big-city police departments we contacted specifically ban the practice.
...

[Sterling]

59. Well they have pictures, video, eye witness reports and a UN report

By the way, how do you prove anything in the eyes of a cop when it concerns another cop? It seems the standard of proof is unreasonably high when it is very low when the perp is not a cop. As you have demonstrated cops don't want to arrest or even find fault with other cops. It's almost cult like.

[TryingToWarnYou]

84. You might want to catch up on this thread..the UN stuff says nothing

Lots of allegations, but no proof.

Pictures without context mean nothing.

The video I just saw showed nothing.

Again, IM NOT DEFENDING THE COPS. Im saying that neither you nor I know what happened there to precipitate the actions of the cops. You may claim to be psychic, but I dont.

FYI, in 14 years, I have outed 3 officers for wrongdoing. I would do it again tomorrow. They were a disgrace to the oath I swore to uphold. Funny how the cops always seem to be told they see the world in black and white yet its usually non-cops that love to put us all in one basket.

[placton]

68. Gee, officer, do you often testify

in criminal cases that "allegations aren't proof, so find the dude I arrested not guilty?"

[TryingToWarnYou]

88. www.dictionary.com

Allegations do not equal evidence.

If I have proof/evidence, I dont need allegations. Im not alleging anything, Im stating that this is what this person did, here is the proof.

Its scary that you guys are so worked up over these causes and yet you dont understand the most minimally basic differences between allegations and evidence.

If I say you hit me and theres nothing to back that claim up (no mark or other injury), thats an allegation.

If I say you hit me and I have a video of you hitting me, thats evidence.

[anarchy1999]

36. I'll give you five nickels for everything you don't know, and apparently

care not to find out about.

[TryingToWarnYou]

39. Meanwhile, my statement still stands. He only knows one side, maybe. NT

[Sterling]

54. "Meanwhile, my statement still stands"

Yes it stands as an example of why people don't trust cops.

[TryingToWarnYou]

93. Yeah, we should all go around presuming, assuming and guessing rather than

getting the facts of a situation before passing judgement on it.

[el_gato]

107. I've seen it all first hand

say what you want but I've been there and have seen it all first hand

[anarchy1999]

31. This was at the protest in Oakland last year. Thank god, you've been

in law enforcement for 14 years. Now go read up on what happened last year and say it was okay, okay? There was no black or white here. It was wrong. And it was the cops.

[TryingToWarnYou]

40. From what I just read, there was no clear cut anything.

It was all alleged. United Nations didnt mince words.

I was not there so I dont know for sure what happened, but if you guys are going to toss out these alleged incidents, then we all need to be on the same ground here. You dont know what happened either, so quit acting like you have the truth and facts on your side. The only fact is that NEITHER ONE OF US was there so we do not know what happened. We know what was alleged by both sides, thats it.

[Sterling]

55. I don't think that lump on her jaw is an allegation.

If you think there was a good reason for that I feel very sorry for you but mostly the people who are subjected to your authority.

[TryingToWarnYou]

94. Yeah she was shot..do we know why? No we dont.

So without context it really means nothing.

Until you can prove she was shot just for no reason at all then you are guessing just like everyone else, including me. The difference between us is that Im willing to admit I dont know what happened.

We certainly dont know if she did something that warranted the actions of the cops either.

[el_gato]

105. Because she spoke truth to power, plain and simple

all your excuses aside we know damn well why she was shot




Video taken by independent journalists shows that police began firing rubber bullets and pepper pellets at protesters without cause outside a large permitted rally on November 20.

[Sterling]

48. He is just saying their are always two sides to every story, lol.

And the police side is the only one he respects, even if you have photo's, a UN reports and eye witnesses.

And cops wonder why people think they are full of shit?

[not systems]

52. Spot on...

he only accepts one standard of proof.

The blue wall.

[TryingToWarnYou]

96. No, unlike you guys, I want proof and facts..not word of mouth. NT

[el_gato]

101. Miami FTAA police state

Riot police are shown firing rubber bullets at protesters after firing
tear gas during a protest in Miami November 20.
Photo by Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

[el_gato]

102. Miami Police State in support of the FTAA

Police used violence against peaceful protesters in Miami and violated people's Constitutional rights to protest. Police were heavily armed with protective riot gear and armed with tear-gas, pepper-spray, batons, tasers, and guns that fired rubber bullets, pepper pellets, "bean-bags," and other projectiles.

[el_gato]

103. More police state fascism

Another nerd out to ruin the peace, good things these
"cops" are "protecting" us.

[anarchy1999]

58. Sterling, keep in mind "it was alleged".

This new person is an )(*&(. I'm saving myself, I don't want to be banned. All we need around here is a law enforcement person enlightening us all. Its a good thing.

[Sterling]

61. When it's by a cop it usually stays "alleged"

When it's one of us it's a lot different. We can have photo's, witnesses a UN report and it won't make a dent in the blue wall of ignorance and silence.

[anarchy1999]

64. Yep, my uncle is a retired cop now bondsman in Southern CA.

I lived with him and worked for him and I know all about it. There is only "grey".

[TryingToWarnYou]

97. The UN report said nothing...it was an echo.

But keep flailing about in a desperate attempt that if you repeat the bullshit long enough, it might come true.

[TryingToWarnYou]

95. The UN report ALLEGED many things, no proof. They simply parroted

the complaints of the same two people. They are reporting what those two complained about, they are not saying it took place.

Photos without context are nothing.

Eye witness? Yeah, thats a non-biased source.

Gee, what do you think the chances are that they will tell the same story about the cops?

You guys really need to learn how to determine whats information and whats evidence.

[not systems]

109. The Oakland Police Don't Agree With You.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:pEvkvHOAi6IJ:www.oaklandpolice.com/geninfo/press/03.12.11.pdf+Oakland+Police+Protest+Policy&hl=en

It is good thing there are saner people than you
in the police department in Oakland.

[not systems]

115. crickets chirping...

• The numbering of police officer helmets in an effort to easily identify officers involved in any police action.

• The elimination of the wooden dowel from the Oakland Police Department arsenal.

• The suspension of the motorcycle B.U.M.P. (Basic Utilization of Motorcycle Push) technique.

• Restricting the use of flexible baton (bean bag) rounds.

• All officers will be trained on the new crowd control policy.

These are all actions taken to fix the abuses that happened at the docks.

[KCS72000]

49. Read the link

This person was a peaceful demonstrator shot by wooden bullets.

[Must_B_Free]

8. groundation

yes I

[alexisfree]

4. they will be rady for us on the 20th!!

[devilgrrl]

7. Dude, your spinning this like Hannity or O'Reilly!!!!!!

:silly:

<sarcasm>As a police officer I'll do my darnedest to skirt the issue... Brutality at protests, I don't know what you mean? Maybe that girl deserved to be hit by a rubber bullet. But you used profanity and made personal fun, I'm not responding to your question.</sarcasm>

[Sterling]

9. It gets frustrating

Everyone has an opinion, most of them are grossly under informed. It still sucks to see it in the people who have the power to abuse us all the while they have no clue what we are really upset about.

Thread in question:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2965544

[devilgrrl]

10. Did you notice that neither of the individuals in those posts...

addressed the question? I cut them both off... jerks. :puke::argh::grr::mad::puke:

[TryingToWarnYou]

16. Interesting post there...

I notice that you were the first one to "attack" him for being a cop.

After reading a few more of your responses to him, you blatantly attempted to pick a fight with him when you could have engaged in discussion like others were doing.

While I dont agree with his comments, I understand the point he was trying to make. Perhaps he isnt very good at explaining himself in a social setting? That seems to be my problem too. I get misunderstood often and its one of the primary reasons I dont post long, protracted, discussions.

Anyway, you seem to think you know it all and that this officer has nothing to contribute, only to learn. Thats about as myopic of a view as I would expect from someone that doesnt understand the very group he claims misunderstands him.

[Sterling]

19. That seems to be my problem too

It probably comes from being able to boss civilians around arbitrarily. I know you think it's just part of your job but it does not really prepare you to deal with fellow citizens as equals and express yourself accordingly. I don't mean respect so much as being able to take criticism and deal with others being upset with you.

Sometimes I run into cops who act like normal people. When I do it gives me confidence in that individuals ability to handle the huge mount of power we give them to do their job.

[TryingToWarnYou]

20. Well theres criticisim that is deserved and then...

theres some thats just pulled out of thin air for the sake of ragging on someone.

[devilgrrl]

23. How's this for thin air?

<snip>
In the first jury trial stemming from the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, video and photographic evidence showed that police testimony in the case appeared to have been entirely fabricated. Judge Gerald Harris granted a motion to dismiss all charges against Dennis Kyne on December 16th, 2004, after the defendant’s attorneys produced the evidence contradicting statements made by NYPD officer Matthew Wohl while under oath.

and more! http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/01/868.shtml

http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/region/nyc/

[TryingToWarnYou]

28. Gee, no I-hate-cops bias there..nope.

What testimony? For which arrests?

Dont fall into the trap of just because its something you want to hear that its not fabricated too.

Im asking for you to provide specific information regarding what testimony was "entirely fabricated". Who's statement is that? The courts or the person that wrote the article?

[Sterling]

53. You said you had a problem?

I was just suggesting a root cause of the prob could be the fact you are not used to talking to people as equals?

From you and the other officer that posted on the other threads contributions to the board I believe you are both suffering from a disconnect with reality that could very easily effect your your outlook on others even off the job.

You seem to have a very black and white world view that prevents you from seeing things that don't support your opinions. Cops are not used to having to admit when they are wrong. That much is clear. This thread is no exception.

[TryingToWarnYou]

98. Hmm, well, if pointing out your reliance on word of mouth as proof

is a disconnection from reality, then Im guilty as charged. Im funny that way. I usually expect people to come up with something other than word of mouth when they are alleging that a crime took place.

Thats usually called evidence.

So far, you guys have cried and cried about police brutality and yet, you cannot recognize that what you are saying has no support.

The U.N. Report - rehashes the complaint by two people. There is no independent finding of fact by the UN. Its allegedly, reportedly etc. It is an echo.

The video - grainy, badly shot, no images of the cops doing anything out of the ordinary even when its alleged they brutalized protesters. When there is video of the cops, its out of focus, wobbly, distant etc. Why wouldnt you get in close with the camera especially if you are expecting trouble? Of course, no mention is made of why people were shot with rubber bullets etc. I imagine that it might not mesh with the concept that all protesters are benign and all cops evil.

Pictures - no context, just like the above mentioned video. Ill take a picture of you with a kid sitting in your lap and distribute it over the internet saying its you molesting a kid. I can say what I want without context. get it?

[devilgrrl]

11. I asked questions pertaining to police conduct at protests here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2967836

[Gay Ranger]

12. Cops are there...

to keep the peace and enforce the law, not protect anyone's rights. Protecting ones rights is a matter for the courts. It is a different mind set. Not defending their actions here, in fact a lot of times their actions are indefensible, but like I said, keeping the peace takes a higher priority for cops than what ever your indvidual rights are.

Disperse means Disperse. Get down means Get down. Anything less than compliance gets you a baton to the side of the head. Go to the courts or seek recourse if it happens, but don't be surprised when it does.

[devilgrrl]

13. "Disperse means Disperse. Get down means Get down."

Wow, that sounds more like inciting violence than keeping the peace.

Pfffft! Get off my planet! :eyes:

[Gay Ranger]

14. A little quick on the trigger there, aren't you?

I was in no way defending cops. Take it from someone who has not only had the baton against his head, but also has had one of their Glocks pressed to behind my ear, "Get Down" means "GET DOWN!" Inciting violence or not, when it gets to the point where a cop is yelling "Get down" violence will ensue if you don't.

[el_gato]

33. The streets belong to the people of this country not the cops

we are not here to be lackeys and slaves contrary to your slave mentality.

What makes you think the cops have a right to just boss people around?
They don't but you may be suffering from kiss the whip syndrome.

[Gay Ranger]

116. Again,

I never said it was right. I hate that it is so, but words in their face mean little to cops with their batons and rubber bullets. I am all for a little outrage and protest, but to be surprised that some heads will busted is folly. All I am saying is if you do not get down when a cop says get down, things happen. Something are worth a beating. I never said that cops have a right to abuse anybody. But it is readily apparent from their actions that they think they do.

[DrWeird]

24. The phrase is "to serve and protect."

to SERVE and protect.

[devilgrrl]

26. "to serve and protect" corporate America...

that is.

[DistantWind88]

56. Yeah

We just ought to do away with all police, since they only serve corporate America. No need for them to patrol inner cities or anything like that; crime will magically cease once we do away with the police.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistantWind88]

75. Hmmm

I detect a bit of hostility...You seen to have anger problems.

[devilgrrl]

77. You started the fire honey!

:nuke:

[DistantWind88]

81. No

I pointed out that without cops, we'd have anarchy in some places. I'm truly sorry if I wrote something that offended you.

[devilgrrl]

89. I never made the suggest that we should get rid of cops...

nor have I stated that I dislike police in general, I like police just fine. Why shouldn't I? I don't cause any trouble. What my problem is, is the conduct that they often display at protests, where it is usually they whom incite any violence that breaks out. Their force is heavy handed for no other reason than "because they can."

[Sterling]

62. No one said that, we just don't want to be abused by them.

Good cops are worth a lot of respect. When I come across one that does not act like he is god I get a feeling that their is at least one person out their taking their job seriously. unfortunately more often than not cops don't give me that impression.

[anarchy1999]

63. No need to say welcome, I think you might be out of here soon.

n/t

[DistantWind88]

79. Why?

For feeling that most police (98%) perform a useful function?

[MadHound]

29. The major problem I see with police today is their mindset.

I remember when the cops, for the most part, took the notion that they were public servants seriously. Now, for the most part, their mindset is more orientated towards the conviction that they are the guards of an open air asylum, and that they barely have the edge on the inmates. Very much an "us against the world" way of thinking. My cousin is a police officer, and we have talked much on this. He also remembers this, and laments the passing of the time when police were supposed to "protect and serve".

[el_gato]

32. The police as a political tool (infiltrating anti-war groups)

Do you think the cops are gung-ho about protecting the rights of citizens to address those who are in control and making sure there is some kind of even keel in terms of power? If so you are sadly mistaken. The cops routinely engage in efforts to protect those in power while doing everything possible to disrupt the efforts of organizing by the disenfranchised. The cops are servants of the elite. The concerns of citizens mean nothing the concerns of the
economically powerful mean everything.

Here is an example:


APD Infiltration Exposed:
Recently Released Memos Reveal the Names of Four Undercover Detectives, Acknowledge Documentation of Organizers
http://www.issueonline.org/issue_1_4_apd.html
By Jordan Buckley

Infiltration of activist groups by law enforcement has been uncovered and reported in Fresno, Denver and Detroit in the last three years. Now, according to recently returned open records requests, Austin is duly eligible for that growing list.

In December 2003, the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union received confirmation through two Austin Police Department memos that undercover detectives from the Organized Crime Division infiltrated the meetings and training sessions of Austin activists.

According to the first memo, addressed from Sgt. Troy Long to APD Chief Stanley Knee, four detectives were “requested to participate in training sessions and actual protests in an undercover capacity.” In the memo, dated June 3, 2003, Sgt. Long wrote, “Detectives were able to befriend the organizers and leaders of the anti-war protests. The Detectives became privy to information regarding future protests and planned mass civil disobedience.”

On Sept. 25, 2003 the Austin City Council passed a resolution pertaining to police infiltration and the USA PATRIOT Act, which stated: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Austin Police Department shall continue their policy of not conducting surveillance of individuals or groups of individuals based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment . . . without reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal conduct unrelated to activity protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Austin City Council members Daryl Slusher and Raul Alvarez — both of whom voted in favor of the resolution — met with members of Issue to discuss APD’s infiltration of activist groups, but declined to respond to whether they felt APD’s intelligence constituted “reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal conduct.”

Perhaps most alarming is Long’s acknowledgment that “Detectives further assisted in the assignment and deployment of Crowd Management Team (CMT) personnel by providing video footage of the organizers/ leaders of the protests.” The second memo, entitled “War Protest Intelligence,” was written by Detective Derry Minor to Sgt. Long on March 25, 2003. In it, Minor fills four pages with information gathered from his infiltration of an activist training session at the AFL-CIO building two days before. Minor wrote that he “positively identified two local leaders/organizers from Austin,” one of whom was Missy Bolbecker, referred to in the memo as “Melissa Bolbecker.”

read more: http://www.issueonline.org/issue_1_4_apd.html

[G_j]

37. Non-Violent Woman Protester

shot with a rubber bullet at the FTAA protests in Miami.






=============================

[gorbal]

65. Those pictures hurt.

I have to say, Miami has the most blatant and obvious pictures and videos of police abuse and misconduct I have ever seen.

I have been aggravated by some of my fellow protestors characterizations of police in the past, (drama queens some of them are), but this case is one of those where it is so obviously police misconduct there is not point in denying it.

[rman]

60. learn about the "War on Drugs"

"criminal justice is a guaranteed growth industry"

"The US spends $36,630 every second on the war on drugs, every 20 seconds someone is arrested on charges of a drugs related crime, every day 117 people go to prison for a minimum of 5 years. The war on drugs, once started by Reagan, continues relentlessly. The most significant result is not a reduction in drugs use, but the fact that it brings bigger profits every day. So no-one wants to stop this war; to many people are making to much money off it."

Drugs trafficers are competing for quality and discounting the risk of getting cought: from 1981 to 1998 purity has gone up from 40% to 70%, price went down from $3700 to $1600 per gram.

Just stop a car and search it and its driver. Seize any large-ish sums of cash since it could be drugs money. They have some weird legal construction where the car is the suspect of the crime, so it's not a civil case or some such. The money is gone to finance the very same private-entrepreneur-cops (quite official of course) who stopped the car. You’re just lucky they didn't take your car as well.

This is much bigger then just police misconduct.
There is indeed such a thing as the "prison-industrial complex". Prison is big business - when they are filled well.
Leave it to certain politicians to pass laws that allow the prisons to fill (bye bye 4th amendment). Leave it to friends of those politicians to run the prisons.
Policing and in particular enforcement of drugs legislation is big business as well. Again those politicians and their friends.

I suppose there aren't that many documentaries on this subject in the US.
Here's one from abroad. It is English spoken for the most part, with Dutch subtitles.

Actually The Netherlands (land of the Dutch) is cooperating with the US. Our government allows the FBI to use their entrapment methods here, which are completely illegal according to our standards. We'll extradite any citizen to the US, just ask. An accusation by another 'suspect' in the US who'll get reduction of sentence for making the accusation, will suffice. It's usually the "big guy" who gets to accuse others, so the one who committed the bigger crime (the drugs dealer) often will do less time then the people who (allegedly - a statement under oath is all the evidence they need) committed lesser crimes. This way the cycle is perpetuated, producing ever more prisoners and every bigger profits.


online documentary in two parts:

The war on drugs, part 1 - the winners
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/12490764/

The war on drugs, part 2 - the losers
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/12493841/

(realplayer broadband and narrowband links in the bar on the right)

[ernstbass]

114. GREAT post

[sweetheart]

110. The guns and the shaking down

I've no photo, but i've had police officers try to grab me in various
capacities, from telling me not to walk down a new york street when
i'm 20 feet from the end of said street... and then pushing me to
enforce their authority... to other circumstances where the tactile
grabbing seems like something they think they've the right to do.

As well, i think police should leave their guns in their cars, and
walk around like the rest of us, without deadly force. They can always
bring the gun if the call-out requires it... but for normal duty, the
gun is a crutch. I've had that gun drawn and pointed at me, perhaps
the police man thought i was going to grab it, and pulled it out
first to let me know who had it... not that i had any such intention..

To being pulled over mistakenly on my bicycle after someone was
burgled with a helicopter overhead and guns trained on my back...
to being pulled over in traffic and having a man behind my right
rear back seat window with a gun leveled at my head whilst i was to
produce license and registration... the guns should stay in the car
and it will leave us all less jumpy.

I would hope as well, that they consider a more subtle uniform, perhaps
something snappy in white and blue, that was less threatening, as the
whole thing about being threatening just creates terror, fear and
makes people react more out of fear for thier lives.

In my interactions with british police, by contrast, without the guns
and a wholly different attitude towards policing, that i am innocent
and a person who may need help from a decent public servant. Wow!
If you see a car on the side of a british road with a police car by it,
likely the person is getting help with a breakdown. The war of
police against the citizen is not so divisive and i actually find
the police pleasant and not threatening.... no guns and no implied
threat to shoot me.

Don't shoot me, don't touch me, you'r talking to me to fuck me over,
what can i say to get away from this police person as fast as
possible.