[*BCM*] Re: [swrannounce] undercovers uncovered by video analysts - links

[Jym Dyer]

> I bought/watched the Still We Ride video, but have never
> ridden in NYC.  The video seems one-sided, perhaps due to no
> response from NYPD.

=v= Much of the NYC media was simply an uncritical megaphone
for the NYPD's various statements on the matter, so if it seems
"one-sided" out of that context, it's some much-needed balance
within that context.  (Personally I think it would be of value
to show the various NYPD statements as they evolved, to show
how inconsistent and conveniently altered they are.)

> I got a clearer idea of the NYPD position from the Amy Goodman
> interview on Democracy Now.

=v= What you got a clearer idea of is what Paul Browne, their
public relations head, wants people to believe *this* week.
They don't reflect "the NYPD position" in terms of what they've
actually been doing throughout.  (Also, those remarks aren't
about Critical Mass _per_se_; they're a response to the _Times_
article that came out last week and a concurrent legal challenge
to the NYPD's abuse of the Handschu agreement.)

> -So what if the police are in our midst, and undercover?  Yes
> it is an invasion of our political space, but I bet many of us
> believe in an open society.  Our group has to follow its own
> standards, no?

=v= The NYPD does not just observe, they agitate.  Did you
somehow miss that aspect?  Check out the _New_York_Times_ site
to see some video of that.  Undercover agitation is, of course,
a tactic used specifically to *abuse* open society.

=v= Also, a century or so of civil rights history has made it
quite clear that the public "just observing" is different from
the police "just observing."  Police have historically parlayed
the "just observing" of free speech and free assembly into the
abuse and suppression of same.  The NYPD are doing exactly that.

> If I am videotaped participating in non-violent protest/
> riding my bike, kudos to us for actually participating in
> the Process.  Do people actually lose jobs because of their
> political action?

=v= Yes, kudos to us.  We need more than applause for justice
to prevail, though.  The judicial process is a punishment all
its own when one is being railroaded.

=v= As far as we, the public, have been permitted to know,
the only thing the NYPD did with their videotape is mislead
the District Attorney, telling their prosecutors that they
had videotaped proof of the things they were charging us with.
The prosecutors, in turn, pursued the charges with vigor,
and assured the judges there'd be videotape proving the case,
and it would be available real soon now, so let's reschedule
yet another court date.

=v= So, those who get arrested are forced into court over and
over again for more than a year (which of course DOES mess up
at the workplace), have to pay lawyers (those who could afford
them), etc., even for utterly fictional charges.  Over a year
later, the case is dismissed, the police and prosecutor and
judge and defense lawyers collect their generous paychecks
for a job poorly done, and the completely innocent arrestee
has missed work and might have legal fees.

> -If a bottle or rock is thrown, well that is illegal.

=v= What an odd use of both interjection and passive voice.  No
bottles or rocks have been thrown, so why invoke the scenario?
The real live actual concrete material scenario under discussion
is *police* instigation.

> The NYPD power must be checked on that basis through the
> courts/ordinances.

=v= See above about who gets punished along the way, even
though they're innocent, and who gets paid.  Even without the
undercover stuff, the police are violating ordinances, their own
policies, and other agreements.  They are committing perjury
when writing fictitious charges and lying on the stands -- both
of which are criminal offenses.
    <_Jym_>