Well, it’s been an interesting day here at the RNC. First, let me tell you, if you’re planning on coming down to St. Paul to stroll around and see the sights, good luck. As of right now, Kellogg is entirely shut down, as is much of Shepard. If you have surmised that you therefore cannot move from anywhere downtown to anywhere down West Seventh, you are correct — at least unless you want to walk up to Summit.
Meanwhile, it really is very much like Beijing right now. Riot police are everywhere, and where riot police aren’t, things are completely locked down. The idiot protesters have cause a bit of damage — Macy’s evidently got a window broken (way to smash capitalism, guys!) and a police car got a window broken (and was evidently quickly moved to a more visible location so everyone could get a good look at the work of those naughty, naughty kids).
And I’ve only run into one reporter and a group of friends who were tear-gassed with no warning for being near, but not a part of, a protest.
We’re way beyond overkill at this point. I love St. Paul. But this isn’t St. Paul right now. War zones are less restrictive and more free than this. It is, I suppose, a sign of the times. But it also is a hell of a way for us to pick the leadership of the freest country on Earth.
Check this out.
Still think that the level of security here is overkill? Also covered by Reuters and CNN.
Yes, as a Twin Cities resident, I do.
286 troublemakers out of more than 10,000 is a pretty small ratio, and if we exclude the individuals who were arrested for being near rather than part of any illegal action, it goes down even more. I’ve seen enough reports from different sources to be confident that at least some of those arrested fall into that category.
A smaller, less confrontation force could have handled this protest easily. Not only was the “vandal contingent” small, they were easily isolated.
Yes, hordes of thugs to arrest a small number of vandals is overkill.
Ron, they knocked down one of the Democracy Now producers who was trying to get away, bloodied her nose, and told her to put her face on the ground and stepped on her back while they were trying to drag her away by her leg. Don’t you think that’s excessive, injuring a member of the press? Then they arrested her for “inciting to riot”. Then they gang-tackled and arrested her co-worker. When the host, Amy Goodman, went to remind the police that they were arresting credentialed journalists, she was arrested as well.
Gassing crowds of peaceful demonstrators is NEVER appropriate, nor is firing rubber bullets at them — but they did it. There is NO CALL to assault or arrest somebody who’s peacefully filming the police — but they did it.
I have been to dozens of large peace demonstrations. I have never seen any illegal activity on the part of protesters more serious than littering; while I’m sure it happens from time to time, it’s RARE. On the other hand, I quite often see police officers trying to pick a fight. I saw a troupe of officers ride their bikes at 10-15mph through a crowd of peaceful demonstrators. They ran into an old lady standing right in front of me, knocking her over. Of course, they didn’t even stop to see if she was okay; something any decent human being would have done.
Police violence at demonstrations is not RARE — it’s RAMPANT. Think very carefully before you put your credibility on the line trying to defend them.
I’m not defending police brutality. I’ve seen it in action myself. But the posting focuses on the deployment of riot police and locking down the area around the RNC, and that’s what I was commenting on, not on the actions of the police. The fact that violence has been perpetrated by “protestors” (protesting is valid, mind you – it’s the violence that isn’t) tends to validate the decision to provide the area with a high level of security.
Now if it’s being misused (not a complete surprise to me, I assure you, I’ve been tear-gassed myself and saw a kid get his leg broken for no good reason by cops), that’s a separate issue, but not one that I was commenting on.
Ron, I don’t think you can separate the two. Whenever you send out a horde of heavily armed, heavily armored troops who are trained to handle violent situations, you are very likely to get violence. Advocating such a deployment but disclaiming responsibility for the violence that erupts is like advocating a war but disclaiming responsibility for people getting killed.
I recognize that some sort of police presence is necessary at these sorts of things. But there are ways to provide a police presence which increase the probability of a conflict, and there are ways to do so that decrease the probability of a conflict, and the pictures I’ve seen and stories I’ve heard lead me to believe that this particular deployment was skewed towards increasing conflict.
The police could have:
* required troopers to wear name tags, to deter them from unsanctioned violence. A trooper is a lot more likely to brutalize somebody if he thinks he can’t be recognized behind his mask.
* reduced the temptation to attack civilians by keeping the riot squads out of sight unless an actual riot broke out.
* used “spotters” in buildings, instead of troops on the ground, to keep an eye on things.
* made it a policy to ignore minor violations, rather than order around/ticket/arrest the violators and risk causing a conflict. (Minor violation being things like sitting where you’re not supposed to, stepping off the sidewalk on a closed street, etc.)
* get in, arrest anybody who is being violent, and get out quickly, rather than sticking around and risking stirring up more trouble.
* use “less than lethal” measures only in situations where people are in danger; not for minor problems like people protesting outside a free speech zone.
* make it crystal clear that unnecessary use of force will not be tolerated, rather than turning a blind eye to it.
But from what I’ve seen and heard, that’s not the way this deployment was organized. They chose to try to increase conflict, knowing that if anybody got hurt, it would just be liberals, who probably deserve it anyways.
And that’s where my objection lies.
I think you can separate the two. I don’t readily see how one can connect the attacks I cited by by self-styled “anarchists” with the presence of riot police. Note:
Most of the violence occurred in pockets of a neighborhood near downtown, several blocks from the Xcel Energy Center,
which is not where the riot cops were. In fact, it seems to me quite likely that the presence of the riot cops where they were deterred these criminals from attempting to do something like this at the convention center itself.
As far as how security should be properly configured and deployed to minimize police brutality, your points are well worth debating. But it seems clear that there were a number of people who came to St. Paul seeking to commit crimes of violence, and that’s not the cops’ fault.