A new way to police?

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
A new way to police?

Police Chief Who Oversaw 1999 WTO Crackdown Says Paramilitary Policing Is a Disaster

The police chief who oversaw Seattle's crackdown on WTO protesters learned the dangers of militarization. November 17, 2011

They came from all over, tens of thousands of demonstrators from around the world, protesting the economic and moral pitfalls of globalization. Our mission as members of the Seattle Police Department? To safeguard people and property—in that order. Things went well the first day. We were praised for our friendliness and restraint—though some politicians were apoplectic at our refusal to make mass arrests for the actions of a few.

Then came day two. Early in the morning, large contingents of demonstrators began to converge at a key downtown intersection. They sat down and refused to budge. Their numbers grew. A labor march would soon add additional thousands to the mix.
“We have to clear the intersection,” said the field commander. “We have to clear the intersection,” the operations commander agreed, from his bunker in the Public Safety Building. Standing alone on the edge of the crowd, I, the chief of police, said to myself, “We have to clear the intersection.”

Why?

Because of all the what-ifs. What if a fire breaks out in the Sheraton across the street? What if a woman goes into labor on the seventeenth floor of the hotel? What if a heart patient goes into cardiac arrest in the high-rise on the corner? What if there’s a stabbing, a shooting, a serious-injury traffic accident? How would an aid car, fire engine or police cruiser get through that sea of people? The cop in me supported the decision to clear the intersection. But the chief in me should have vetoed it. And he certainly should have forbidden the indiscriminate use of tear gas to accomplish it, no matter how many warnings we barked through the bullhorn.

My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose. Rocks, bottles and newspaper racks went flying. Windows were smashed, stores were looted, fires lighted; and more gas filled the streets, with some cops clearly overreacting, escalating and prolonging the conflict. The “Battle in Seattle,” as the WTO protests and their aftermath came to be known, was a huge setback—for the protesters, my cops, the community.

More than a decade later, the police response to the Occupy movement, most disturbingly visible in Oakland—where scenes resembled a war zone and where a marine remains in serious condition from a police projectile—brings into sharp relief the acute and chronic problems of American law enforcement. Seattle might have served as a cautionary tale, but instead, US police forces have become increasingly militarized, and it’s showing in cities everywhere: the NYPD “white shirt” coating innocent people with pepper spray, the arrests of two student journalists at Occupy Atlanta, the declaration of public property as off-limits and the arrests of protesters for “trespassing.”

The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy. And young people, poor people and people of color will forever experience the institution as an abusive, militaristic force—not just during demonstrations but every day, in neighborhoods across the country.

Much of the problem is rooted in a rigid command-and-control hierarchy based on the military model. American police forces are beholden to archaic internal systems of authority whose rules emphasize bureaucratic regulations over conduct on the streets. An officer’s hair length, the shine on his shoes and the condition of his car are more important than whether he treats a burglary victim or a sex worker with dignity and respect. In the interest of “discipline,” too many police bosses treat their frontline officers as dependent children, which helps explain why many of them behave more like juvenile delinquents than mature, competent professionals. It also helps to explain why persistent, patterned misconduct, including racism, sexism, homophobia, brutality, perjury and corruption, do not go away, no matter how many blue-ribbon panels are commissioned or how much training is provided.

External political factors are also to blame, such as the continuing madness of the drug war. Last year police arrested 1.6 million nonviolent drug offenders. In New York City alone almost 50,000 people (overwhelmingly black, Latino or poor) were busted for possession of small amounts of marijuana—some of it, we have recently learned, planted by narcotics officers. The counterproductive response to 9/11, in which the federal government began providing military equipment and training even to some of the smallest rural departments, has fueled the militarization of police forces. Everyday policing is characterized by a SWAT mentality, every other 911 call a military mission. What emerges is a picture of a vital public-safety institution perpetually at war with its own people. The tragic results—raids gone bad, wrong houses hit, innocent people and family pets shot and killed by police—are chronicled in Radley Balko’s excellent 2006 reportOverkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America.

It is ironic that those police officers who are busting up the Occupy protesters are themselves victims of the same social ills the demonstrators are combating: corporate greed; the slackening of essential regulatory systems; and the abject failure of all three branches of government to safeguard civil liberties and to protect, if not provide, basic human needs like health, housing, education and more. With cities and states struggling to balance the budget while continuing to deliver public safety, many cops are finding themselves out of work. And, as many Occupy protesters have pointed out, even as police officers help to safeguard the power and profits of the 1 percent, police officers are part of the 99 percent.

There will always be situations—an armed and barricaded suspect, a man with a knife to his wife’s throat, a school-shooting rampage—that require disciplined, military-like operations. But most of what police are called upon to do, day in and day out, requires patience, diplomacy and interpersonal skills. I’m convinced it is possible to create a smart organizational alternative to the paramilitary bureaucracy that is American policing. But that will not happen unless, even as we cull “bad apples” from our police forces, we recognize that the barrel itself is rotten.

Assuming the necessity of radical structural reform, how do we proceed? By building a progressive police organization, created by rank-and-file officers, “civilian” employees and community representatives. Such an effort would include plans to flatten hierarchies; create a true citizen review board with investigative and subpoena powers; and ensure community participation in all operations, including policy-making, program development, priority-setting and crisis management. In short, cops and citizens would forge an authentic partnership in policing the city. And because partners do not act unilaterally, they would be compelled to keep each other informed, and to build trust and mutual respect—qualities sorely missing from the current equation.

It will not be easy. In fact, failure is assured if we lack the political will to win the support of police chiefs and their elected bosses, if we are unable to influence or neutralize police unions, if we don’t have the courage to move beyond the endless justifications for maintaining the status quo. But imagine the community and its cops united in the effort to responsibly “police” the Occupy movement. Picture thousands of people gathered to press grievances against their government and the corporations, under the watchful, sympathetic protection of their partners in blue.

Norm Stamper was Seattle’s police chief from 1994 to 2000, and a police officer for 34 years. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing. He wrote this article for the Nation.

First Perspective
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,371
578
113
59
Alberta
I actually think the Toronto Police handled the Occupy gang quite well, but then they weren't dealing with the Black Block.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Interesting article, interesting perspective. I've never really thought about it before, but it must be awfully difficult not to go into "combative' mode on a whole crowd when faced with even just an element of a crowd that is being combative. i.e. The Black Block, etc. I've seen many more positive than negative depictions of crowd control during peaceful protests. But the negative stuff makes for better headlines.

I wonder if it's even possible to maintain any kind of balance with a crowd in those situations?

I also find it interesting that he views this as a systemic problem.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
It would seem to me that nowadays the police go into any protest with a predetermined mindset to break it up by any means at all costs. I am not sure how or when it became acceptable and commonplace for governments to attempt to quash any protest before it even starts and then use force as soon as it does but this program of denying people their right to assemble and voice an opinion contrary to the status quo has got to stop. One day the current techniques used by police forces are going to lead multiple deaths and serious injuries on both sides. It is a shame that there seems to be a need to shut these events down rather than let them run their natural course peacefully.

I will admit that there are a few small factions like the `black bloc` who will try to provoke violent confrontation and cause problems but they are a very small group and easily identified and dealt with. I am sure most of the peaceful protesters would probably assist the police in dealing with these abhorrent factions if the police, in return, would allow the rest of the demonstration to proceed.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
Peaceful protests is allowed and when the peaceful protesters let their protest be taken over by violence and damage occurs then at that point it’s over and the police can break it up by any means.

The city should charge the organizers of the protest a permit fee and proof of insurance for the event for any damages done by the protesters.

It’s time to put the protesters on notice that they are responsible financially for damages.

As taxpayers we expect the police to keep the peace at any protest and when it gets out of hand then they should end it.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,395
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
The city should charge the organizers of the protest a permit fee and
proof of insurance for the event for any damages done by the
protesters.


Permit as in "permission" to speak freely in public? What a great idea.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
I feel for cops in these situations for exactly the reason stated in the article.

“We have to clear the intersection,” said the field commander. “We have to clear the intersection,” the operations commander agreed, from his bunker in the Public Safety Building. Standing alone on the edge of the crowd, I, the chief of police, said to myself, “We have to clear the intersection.”

Why?

Because of all the what-ifs. What if a fire breaks out in the Sheraton across the street? What if a woman goes into labor on the seventeenth floor of the hotel? What if a heart patient goes into cardiac arrest in the high-rise on the corner? What if there’s a stabbing, a shooting, a serious-injury traffic accident? How would an aid car, fire engine or police cruiser get through that sea of people? The cop in me supported the decision to clear the intersection.

I think their methodology was wrong, in that they should have used alternative methods to clear the sit-in (and please don't ask me what because I don't know but there has to be some way), but I can't argue with their logic in saying that the intersection had to be cleared. The right of the protestors to make their point, to assemble, to speak out, to march, DOES NOT supercede the rights of other people to have emergency services able to respond to them if needed. Thats why we have traffic laws and the like. I also think too many protestors don't have a sense of their social responsibility in that regard: if you impede an ambulance or fire dept from getting to an emergency, you are endangering others, and sorry but that is where freedom of expression has to hit its limits.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,395
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
Because of all the what-ifs. What if a fire breaks out in the Sheraton
across the street? What if a woman goes into labor on the seventeenth floor of
the hotel? What if a heart patient goes into cardiac arrest in the high-rise on
the corner? What if there’s a stabbing, a shooting, a serious-injury traffic
accident? How would an aid car, fire engine or police cruiser get through that
sea of people? The cop in me supported the decision to clear the
intersection.
it's highly doubtful protesters would halt emergency vehicles such as a meat wagon or fire engine from reaching a real situation.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
it's highly doubtful protesters would halt emergency vehicles such as a meat wagon or fire engine from reaching a real situation.
It's highly doubtful the near gridlock their protest caused would dissipate in time to allow emergency vehicles quick response.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Peaceful protests is allowed and when the peaceful protesters let their protest be taken over by violence and damage occurs then at that point it’s over and the police can break it up by any means.

I don`t think most people at a protest or rally would have any problem with the police removing those persons causing damage or violence but to shut down the whole thing for the actions of a few is ludicrous. Would you halt and cancel a concert or sporting event because a fight broke out in the stands or someone threw a bottle. No, they remove the individual offenders only.

The city should charge the organizers of the protest a permit fee and proof of insurance for the event for any damages done by the protesters.

As was mentioned before, get a permit to exercise my rights? I give a big laugh on that one. Of course most governments already try to make us pay for our rights in many ways so I`m not surprised the sheeple think it`s ok.

It’s time to put the protesters on notice that they are responsible financially for damages.

Does this mean YOU are willing to be responsible for anything bad that happens at any event you attend? Say someone causes some damage at a fundraiser dance, say something gets broken at your company christmas party, should everyone in attendance be financially responsible?

As taxpayers we expect the police to keep the peace at any protest and when it gets out of hand then they should end it.
As a taxpayer I expect the police to serve and protect the citizens of this country, not the corporations and banks!! I expect them to protect and uphold my rights, not trample on them at the behest of corrupt governments!!! I expect police to be held accountable to the same laws they are sworn to uphold which includes assault charges for using a baton or macing someone who is not an immediate threat to life or limb.

Did you ever consider that most of the violence is initiated by police and wouldn`t happen if they didn`t wade into a peaceful crowd swinging batons and spraying mace?

So the rioters should get a permit?

:lol::lol::lol:
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Does this mean YOU are willing to be responsible for anything bad that happens at any event you attend? Say someone causes some damage at a fundraiser dance, say something gets broken at your company christmas party, should everyone in attendance be financially responsible?

Organizers of any event should be expect to be held responsible for damages caused by their event. If people are planning a demonstration, I don't see a notification permit of some sort, which in turn outlines what the protestors can and cannot do (i.e. block intersections, etc.), as being out of line. You cannot convince me the protests at events like the G20 are spontaneous...
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Organizers of any event should be expect to be held responsible for damages caused by their event. If people are planning a demonstration, I don't see a notification permit of some sort, which in turn outlines what the protestors can and cannot do (i.e. block intersections, etc.), as being out of line. You cannot convince me the protests at events like the G20 are spontaneous...

Of course these events are planned to be disruptive, though never planned to be violent. You can't tell me that 100's of cops in riot gear each carrying multiple cans of pepper spray is spontaneous either. The police plan their actions well ahead of time. Techniques such as 'kettling' are pre-planned maneuvers to incite a response and give some faint cause and justification to what is nothing more than police brutality and excessive use of force.