Peter Cole wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/n...8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
> >
> >
> > Oh my god, the police are WATCHING people in public places! How awful!
> > <yawn>
>
> I think you misrepresent the main thrust of the article. It was about
> police undercover infiltration of groups (with no apparent danger to
> public safety) and even engaging in provocative behavior -- although I'm
> willing to accept that may have been individual overzealousness. We've
> been down this road before and it doesn't go anywhere good...
>
> I find it troubling that you, a law enforcement officer I believe, would
> dismiss this so easily.
You find it troubling that I, a law enforcement officer, would dismiss
the *inferences* some would draw from the article so easily. I find it
troubling that you, someone I have never met face to face but have come
to respect as an intelligent person through your posts here, is so
troubled by the police taking reasonable steps to prevent violence.
Read the article again and watch the videos. Every instance cited had
to do, not with true infiltration of groups but, with efforts to
maintain *low profile* surveillance of public gatherings that past
experience has shown can go from peaceful to rowdy to destructive and
dangerous in a very short time. Let's be realistic. What if instead of
using an appropriate number of undercover officers to observe a protest
march that has the potential for violence, the police response is to
line the protest route with hundreds of police in riot gear? Wouldn't
*that* be denounced as police provocation? What if the police don't
take *any* steps to monitor the situation and instead fall back into a
purely reactive stance? What happened in Seattle with the WTO
protestors or more recently in Hong Kong with the farmers or in Paris
with the unemployed (acts of mob violence aren't confined to the US)
are sterling examples of how well a purely reactive stance can work.
IMO, there is a very important distinction between watching what is by
any definition a public event- antiwar marches, white supremacist
rallies, anti-multinational corporation protests, anti-gang violence
vigils, or gay pride parades- and the "infiltration of groups". All of
the supposedly troubling instances of police "infiltration" of groups
the article cites were nothing more than police monitoring a *public*
event on *public* streets. I've been an undercover officer at all of
the events I've listed above and I have never infiltrated any group or
incited any violence. I observed and reported any criminal activity or
threat to the public peace. When I've been in a crowd at KKK rallies,
I've carried "Klan Go Home" signs. I've chanted, "No blood for oil",
with the rest of the crowd at antiwar rallies, carried a candle in
anti-gang violence vigils, and worn a rainbow armband at gay pride
parades. That is not infiltration. It's simply blending into a crowd.
What specific horrible acts are alleged here? I see very few specific
allegations even though the videotapes that are the inspiration for the
article allegedly number in the hundreds. One specific allegation that
is made is that on one occasion there was an arrest of an undercover
police officer (UC) acting as a protestor that sparked resistance from
the real protestors present. In that instance was there *any*
allegation that the UC tried to incite or inflame the crowd to 'rescue'
him from arrest? No. Indeed, the video makes it quite clear that he
calmly submitted to the arrest and one look at the videotape itself
(and maybe a hint) is enough for most people to understand why the
arrest took place. Look at the crowd. Look at their signs. Now look at
the sign the UC was carrying. Signs elevated in the crowd are
conspicuously absent, aren't they? The UC's sign appears to be mounted
on a pipe more suited for displaying a "No Parking" sign than a
handlettered "No justice- No peace" sign. It's a potential *weapon*,
for crissakes! The UC apparently paid little or no attention at the
inevitable pre-staging briefing where I would bet my last dollar every
officer was told to immediately detain anyone carrying anything like
the sign the UC was holding. (That has been part of every such briefing
I've ever attended. You've seen news footage of KKK rallies, I'm sure.
Why do you think the white robed idiots are always shown carrying their
standard like a high school marching band instead of on flagstaffs?)
The two (or more- the article is heavy on opinion and commentary but
just a little light on actual facts) people that tried to thwart the
arrest were themselves arrested and now apparently wish to claim that
it was a "sham arrest" designed to provoke an illegal response.
********. If you were that undercover officer and wanted to incite the
crowd to violence, would you have submitted as quietly and peacefully
as he did on the video? He knew as soon as he was grabbed that he'd
screwed up. He also happens to be involved in the only allegation made
in the article that has any real bite. From the article:
"The same man was videotaped a day earlier, observing the actress
Rosario Dawson as she and others were arrested on 35th Street and
Eighth Avenue as they filmed "This Revolution," a movie that used
actual street demonstrations as a backdrop. At one point, the
blond-haired man seemed to try to rile bystanders. After Ms. Dawson and
another actress were placed into a police van, the blond-haired man can
be seen peering in the window. According to Charles Maol, who was
working on the film, the blond-haired man is the source of a voice that
is heard calling: "Hey, that's my brother in there. What do you got my
brother in there for?"
Maybe he *did* shout that. I don't know but I tend to think he did
because based on the sign incident I'm inclined to think he's not
qualified to work in a UC capacity in that type of setting. That *one*
cop screwed up or is not suited for that type of duty though doesn't
change my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with the police
monitoring people at public events to safeguard the general welfare.
The events are, after all, PUBLIC and safeguarding the public's lives
and property is not only an acceptable police function in our society,
it is the *primary* function of police.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
