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

[Lee Peters]

Thanks Jym,

So the fake arrests, which Browne never explained, were a source of 
agitation on the part of NYPD.  If done enough times, perhaps the crowd 
would become violent.  You seem to be implying the NYPD's interest in making 
the situation worse is to make it end more quickly.  The situation being the 
monthly protest.  Or does the agitation just form from the frustration of 
the NYPD in a confrontational situation in which they have no control.

Sorry about the rock/bottle, perhaps I got tricked by Browne's statements. 
I do want all the CM's to be non-violent, we/they have moments where it is 
nearly out of control.  Usually, the combination of the testosterone of CM 
and an episode of road rage creates that moment.

I do remember our own CM guy who was arrested by the Statey.  He paid in 
time and money.  I would never minimize the difficulty of those that got 
randomly chosen out of the crowd, to make a 'test case'.  I hope the test 
cases will help us all, however.

So, what is the reason for change in approach by the NYPD from pre-RNC to 
post-RNC?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jym Dyer" <jym at econet.org>
To: "Boston CM" <list at bostoncriticalmass.org>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [*BCM*] Re: [swrannounce] undercovers uncovered by video 
analysts- links


>> 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_>
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>