Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
When Police Stick to Phony Script
They call it the Miami Model.
But it could be called the Genoa model, the Pittsburgh model and, after this weekend, the Toronto model.
It refers to police tactics used in Miami seven years ago, during the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit, and, more importantly, the protests erupting on the streets outside.
Manny Diaz, Miami’s then-mayor, called the police methods exemplary — a model to be followed by homeland security when confronting protesters.
Human rights groups including Amnesty International called it a model of police brutality and intimidation.
Protesters were beaten with tear gas, sticks, rubber bullets . . . You can watch police stun cowering protesters with Tasers on YouTube. Last year, the city agreed it had trampled citizens’ right to free speech by forcing marchers back from planned protests and settled out of court with Amnesty International.
What is the Miami Model?
I called Naomi Archer to find out. She is an indigenous rights worker from North Carolina who happened to be giving a lecture on the Miami Model yesterday at the U.S. Social Forum — the G20 for community activists.
Archer, who was in Miami as a liaison between protesters and police, has a 40-box checklist to identify the Model. Here are the main themes.
• Information warfare. This starts weeks before the event. Protesters are criminalized and dehumanized, and described as dangerous “anarchists” and “terrorists” the city needs to defend against.
“Often, a faux cache is found,” says Archer. “They are usually ordinary objects, like bike inner tubes, camping equipment, but the police make them out to look threatening. It lays the groundwork for police to be violent and it means there’s a reduced accountability of law enforcement.”
• Intimidation. Police start random searches of perceived protesters before any large rallies. They are asked where they are staying, why they are walking around. Police raid organizer’s homes or meeting places, “usually just before the summit, so there’s maximum chaos organizers have to deal with,” says Archer.
“All this is meant to dissuade participants. The best way to make sure you don’t have a critical mass of people taking over the streets like in Seattle is to reduce the numbers at the outset.”
This is usually made possible by last-minute city regulations, curtailing the right to protest. In Miami, the city commission passed a temporary ordinance forbidding groups of more than seven to congregate for more than 30 minutes without a permit.
• “They threw rocks.” That’s the line police use after tear-gassing or beating protesters most times, Archer says. Urine and human feces are variations on the theme. But it’s always the protesters who triggered the violence. A popular police tactic is called “kettling.” Officers on bike or horses herd protesters into an enclosed space, so they can’t leave without trying to break through the police line. Take the bait; you provoke a beating or arrest. And of course, there are the famous agent provocateurs, outted publicly two years ago in Montebello. Police officers dressed up like militant protesters to protect the peaceful crowd, they say; Archer says it’s to instigate trouble.
In Montebello, one of the three cops dressed in black was holding a rock.
“It’s the same lies every single protest,” she says. “It’s justification by law enforcement for their violent actions. This is a propaganda war.”
• Job well done. At the end, regardless of the bodies clogging the temporary holding cells and hospitals, the police always congratulate themselves. And by the time the cases go to court, the story is long forgotten and the circus has moved to a new unsuspecting town.
More than 270 people were arrested in Miami during the summit seven years ago . How many were convicted, in the end? I called the American Civil Liberties Union to find out.
“None,” said lawyer Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, who was the president of the Miami chapter back then.
So far in Toronto, the police show has unrolled according to script; we’ve seen the propaganda, the cache, the intimidation, the secretive new regulations, the scary military arsenal. . . .
Next up, rocks. Will we all believe that one too?
35 Comments so far
Show AllWhat if there was a class war and only one side was invited?
The outcome remains the same.
Love it.
Fascinating information, about police tactics here in the land of the free & home of the brave.
Yes, this free country here, where the courts have determined that every citizen MUST carry some form of government approved identification papers.
The government is utterly corrupt.
I carry a pocket mirror.
When asked if I can identify myself,
I whip it out,
look into it,
and say:
"Yep. That's me."
Dear vdb; very fuuny, I like this.
However, beware! They'd probably look at a mirror as a potentail incendiary device! Watch out for your underwear, because, hey, it could be used as a sling shot ( you know) for one of those rocks in your pocket!
Israel used this concept of turning ordinary items into WMDs with the flotilla, and many governments bought this too.
Remember the words of Tacitus: " corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." When the republic is most corrupt, there are more laws!
Whip out a mirror in front of one of our "brave" police officers and you're liable to be assaulted, tasered, arrested and charged with attempted murder. All he or she has to say is that they saw something shiny and thought it was a gun.
good thing I left the USA in 1971.
John Timoney, though not mentioned in the article, was the Miami police chief who enthusiastically implemented the "hassle with extreme prejudice" strategy and tactics applied here.
Ironically, when he was previously hired as Philly, PA's police chief, Timoney was touted as a model enlightened professional-- "tough", but a far cry from the iconic "Supercop" Frank Rizzo. There were a couple of interim "caretaker" police commissioners after Rizzo left, but Rizzo cast a long shadow and set the standard for high-profile police action.
Compared to Rizzo's megalomaniacal, Roman general persona, Timoney came across as a relatively humble, low-key "street cop"-- he commuted to work on his bicycle, etc. A real Mister Nice Guy.
During the 2000 RNC in Philly, though, Timoney's true goon persona emerged; he made it clear that he despised protestors, demonstrators, and activists in general, and was happy to turn loose his spies, snitches, and stormtroopers to overwhelm and at least nullify lawful political dissent.
For Timoney, Philly was a warm-up for Miami.
I may be biased from living in or near Philly all my life, but to me the "other shoe" to the outrages and atrocities discussed in the article is the "Good German" law and order mentality that permeates the judiciary, and is rooted in the respectable classes; in fact, cheerleading and reflexively supporting the police is a broadly conservative mentality that unites "respectable" citizens from working-class enclaves to the Main Line mansions.
Rizzo was adored by the local Italian-American community, but ethnic loyalty or solidarity is only part of the mix. IMO, there's a powerful pathological combination of fear and gratitude towards cops that permeates the judiciary.
Judges and juries typically bend over backwards to excuse and exonerate criminal behavior by police. So, even if tryers of fact take notice of "questionable" policies or actions, there's an "automatic" benefit of the doubt that kicks in like a big, fat, greasy thumb on the scales of Justice.
In Philly, the DA is like an enabling parent who protects and defends police actions in every controversy. The message filters down to the jury pool at large: back up the cops-- YOUR safety and security depend on it!
As long as the judiciary is effectively ALLIED with the cops, and makes common cause with them against (in their eyes) citizen troublemakers, these deplorable police tactics will flourish unchecked.
I'm not sure what can be done to counter this unspoken (and denied) alliance. There are certainly plenty of people who DON'T share this reverence for the Thin Blue Line, but I'm stumped as to how a more critical and skeptical attitude can be inculcated in ignorant, fearful, and simplistic "Good German" sheeple.
I thought it is a crime to deny someone their political rights. As least it is actionable in court.
Good Grief the entire government from top to bottom is controlled by the ruling elite.
How did this happen?
"John Timoney, though not mentioned in the article, was the Miami police chief who enthusiastically implemented the "hassle with extreme prejudice" strategy and tactics applied here." -- Obedient Servant
I remember watching the violence unfold in Miami on Democracy Now! I had forgotten that Timoney had previously implemented his brutal strategies on the people of Philadelphia.
In addition, if I recall correctly, Timoney was hired to oversea the Democratic convention in Boston. Remember the dog cages? Even Chris Matthews was disgusted by the images.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Nothing ever manifests itself out of thin air -- NOT completely.
Timoney served both Republicans and Democrats -- Capitalists ALL, with the goal of controlling the people.
As I recall, on the patches worn by most 'cops' and emblazoned on the sides of many cop cars is the slogan: "To Protect and To Serve"............Hah!!!
And why does the people put up with this crap?
Bring America Back !!!!
**This one was in Toronto , 500 arrested so far, and it is for the protestors to discern what differences protesting in this country would have.
**Point seems to be the jackboot cops can no longer distinguish between peaceful, lawful protest, and illegal, destructive rioting. This writer says the jackboots lie and do all they can to fit protests into the latter category.
**Activists usually know nowdays, they will not acces the official Country Reps during a G20, so they hope and gear their efforts to getting Media notice and coverage, since the Media will always turn up !
**I saw some of the video on the clash of protestors with the riot gear police in Canada, but I cannot name or identify one issue as the reason for the protests ???
I just got done reading an article on the Zmag website that discusses how the feeling of empathy is systematically weakened by social, economic and cultural means. The above article describes how the elite use the media, the police, economics and elected officials to employ methods that weaken empathy and are sociopathic in essence. It also talks about how our so called "leaders" follow these same sociopathic rules in order to advance economically or politically. Very interesting read that gives hope for the future.
http://www.zcommunications.org/empathy-and-neuropolitics-by-gary-olson
thanks for the link!
it adds weight to my contention that we are born "good"
"I used to care, but things have changed" - Dylan
Funny you should quote Dylan; when I came to the term "leaders" in aremagen's comment, I instantly flashed upon "Don't follow 'leaders'-- watch the parking meters."
ObServant-
most concise definition of anarchy ever.
go your own way but mind the rules of the games you freely choose to play.
I'm sure that some are born good and some are born selfish but what the author Olson proposes is that empathy comes mostly from our daily experiences with empathy being reinforced with more experiences.
Olson also says that capitalism (individualism), a military and police culture (the enemy is the other to be feared), religion (punish offenders), winner-take-all politics (sociopathic), weakens the feelings to help others because helping others with real change is not the social norm (hence bleeding heart liberals). We usually work with the symptoms and not the root cause.
I wrote Mr. Olson and asked if he might write a pamphlet, something along the lines of Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man, explaining the basics of empathy and how it can make our lives better. You'll be hearing a lot more about empathy in the future and I think it is one of those things that will help us challenge the elite.
Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is pretty thorough evaluation on the subject.
The Police are just looking out for what's best for all of us, you know- kind of like a Big Brother.
This phony police script has been going on since at least the 1960s, a time when as a reporter I covered at least five "civil disorders" aka riots in at least three U.S. cities.
Probably, the main difference today is that the police have more money, better equipment, and more sophisticated training. Two other differences: the blatant racism back then was countered by activist young blacks who were politically organized and deeply embedded in their own communities (think Black Panthers, etc.); and the existence of the Draft during the Viet Nam war, around which white college students organized in protest (think the Chicago Democratic National Convention of 1968).
Today these confrontations are much more a Kabuki theater and far less spontaneous.
NPR news is currently reporting the Toronto demonstrations precisely according to the script outlined by author Catherine Porter, above: Anarchists, "sharpened sticks," broken bottles, rocks, smashed windows, etc., threatening law enforcement, without the slightest attempt to gain a perspective. Cops rational, protesters threatening our peaceful society.
Finally, I totally agree with Obedient Servant, above, who writes, in part:
"IMO, there's a powerful pathological combination of fear and gratitude towards cops that permeates the judiciary.
"Judges and juries typically bend over backwards to excuse and exonerate criminal behavior by police. So, even if tryers of fact take notice of "questionable" policies or actions, there's an "automatic" benefit of the doubt that kicks in like a big, fat, greasy thumb on the scales of Justice."
It is not necessarily because cops and lawyers and judges like each other or agree with each other; rather it is because their bureaucratic situation has them forced to work together day after day year after year, while the criminal, protestor, demonstrator, "anarchist", etc. is a stranger and an outsider sucked into their intimate circles of closeted skeletons. The same psychology extends to any local journalists, for whom "access" remains crucial. Having worked for newspapers that were editorially pro-civil-rights and anti-Viet Nam war, I was intentionally tear-gassed by cops and threatened with assassination, because they hated what I wrote and/or what my paper(s) represented. Protesters were "enemies of the State," and I was obviously a collaborator...
-30-
Thanks for the positive feedback. I might have written "bloody thumb", but "greasy thumb" will do.
Your point is well taken; those with occupations and professions IN law become habituated to an adversarial ethos that makes all dissenters, suspects, defendants, etc. more or less OUT laws. This polarization intensifies as a government and society becomes more authoriarian and totalitarian, as we are finding. It's in-group vs. out-group.
Also, I'm reminded of a mundane precedent that is invoked in state unemployment compensation appeals, at least in Pennsylvania. It's called "the presumption of regularity of public officials".
In a nutshell, it's invoked to dismiss or quash appeals filed late because the appellant claims they didn't get the decision being appealed in time. If the record shows that the agency actually MAILED the decision in a timely manner, the above-cited presumption trumps the appellant's assertion that it wasn't received timely.
Only if there is actual evidence to rebut this presumption, i.e. proof that there was a fire in the post office handling the mail or somesuch, will a late appeal be allowed.
There are also court precedents holding that "mere" misinformation given by agency employees resulting in a late appeal does not constitute "fraud or its equivalent"-- appellants are supposed to go by the official fine print on the documents, not take the word of some usually unidentified line worker (telephone agent).
Naturally, lawyers and judges whose professional lives are devoted to writing, reading, and interpreting official fine print think that it's "fair" to hold the ordinary layman to such a rigid and fantastical standard.
The point here is that even administrative agencies are presumed to operate in good faith regardless of whether this is actually the case. IMO, this presumption is increased a thousandfold when it comes to law enforcement agencies-- and the military, for that matter.
So, a cop need only claim that in the heat of the moment, the perp seemed to be reaching into a waistband or pocket, or carrying a weapon, or making a threatening move, etc. to justify a violent response. Similarly, the journalist toting a camera can be wasted with impunity because in the fog of war, they appeared to be an RPG-toting terrorist-- fair game according to the "rules of engagement".
We are constrained to accept such claims as honest and true, and eschew or resist the sensible skepticism that recognizes that this excessive, expedient attribution of good faith is abused daily to give the cops or troopers an easy out. We are supposed to be shocked, shocked at the thought that officers of the law would bend the truth for the purposes of self-serving exculpation.
But this only leads back to the intractable question of how such an authoriarian, overweening "benefit of the doubt" can be corrected. The outrage of a perceptive minority isn't making much of a dent.
I've participated in demonstrations all my life: against the war in Vietnam, the Amchitka blast, whaling, phosphates, clearcutting, the relocation of my alternative school, the White Trains, homophobia, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the stolen US elections, crappy union "contracts," missing women, reproductive rights.
In other words, I've demonstrated FOR peace, the environment, social justice, human dignity, whales' dignity ....
And I am sick and fucking tired of the know-nothings who can't even articulate, beyond simple slogans of three to five words (down with capitalism, smash the banks, stick it to the man, that sort of simplistic pap) the issues at all; I'm dismayed that families with kids, the disabled, and the elderly are too afraid of being caught up in mayhem to put their bodies out there, and size does matter, except in the States, where too many people on both sides of the ideological divide fancy themselves and their country too important to fail and would celebrate provoking the cops into actions that resulted in the injury or death of a baby in a stroller.
Those who condemn security perimeters and protest zones around events like the G20 must ask yourselves if you also condemn security perimeters and protest zones around abortion clinics. Yes or no? And ask yourselves: should police stand idly by while yobbos parroting anti-gay slogans smash windows and torch vehicles along the Gay Pride Parade route? Yes? No? And how about: should Ike have called out federal troops and nationalised the Arkansas National Guard to desegrage (sort of) Little Rock Central High? Should neo-Nazis have got a parade permit to march in Skokie? Yes or no. Should denying the Holocaust be a criminal offence? Yes or no.
Too complicated to justify smashing windows? Good.
I read your comment twice. What point are you trying to make?
Yea, just what point are you trying to make? Your so-called questions amount to little more than dangerous misdirection and invidious comparison. You blame the victims of the brutal police state. Just who do you work for?
How does one 'desegrage' something?
Thanks O.S.---
In my youth I spent two years as a reporter in a small industrial city in PA.
I recall that they had some sort of "justice of the peace" system (a corruption of the "alderman" system?) that was sort of a local extortion scheme for moving violations.
In my youthful idealism I thought PA was sooo corrupt. Later I found that it was not alone. One of the beauties of the federalist states-rights system is how many varieties of corruption there are and how they are rationalized. Take Ohio, please!
-30-
I keep looking at these articles and what I miss seeing is the influence of the deluge of cop shows on television.
On TV, always the cops are right and always the cops have cheap, smart-ass things to say to the bad guys in the plot. How clever, just new versions of Dragnet and any number of other dramas on film and television in which the heroes are authority figures in life or death crime or war situations.
For all the news media failings we seem to keep forgetting to mention, or even make much of, the pre-conditioning from crime shows. Interrogators in the military were "trained" by "24" of all sources. All the CSI variations. All the Law and Orders. A world of almost nothing but crime and only cops to beat the crime.
This is the atmosphere in which these cop actions are sold to the public, not the news coverage alone. Without the training on how the police are always right the news coverage would be anomalous.
Case in point-- who ya gonna believe, a cop or your lyin' eyes?
___________________
MONDAY Jun 28, 2010 16:08 ET
NYC officer acquitted of assaulting unarmed man
By Associated Press
A New York City police officer has been acquitted of assaulting an unarmed, handcuffed Iraq war veteran and lying about the confrontation that was caught on videotape.
A jury delivered its verdict Monday in the case against David London.
Surveillance cameras in a Manhattan apartment building captured London using his baton to beat Walter Harvin in July 2008 after Harvin had pushed him. The blows continued after Harvin was knocked to the ground and cuffed.
London said he kept hitting Harvin because the Army veteran kept kicking at him and threatened to kill him.
Prosecutors said London used excessive force and then tried to cover it up by signing court papers falsely saying Harvin had punched him. London said he didn't read the papers carefully.
Charges against Harvin were dropped.
Whew! So much to respond to here. Excellent point, that cop shows and military shows condition the public to be pro-cop. I'm also sure it's true that judges spend enough time with cops to be sympathetic. But the most important thing here is what the original article points out, something I was thinking as I watched two Real News clips about the Toronto events. Namely, that it doesn't matter that this happened in Toronto, or Canada. Anytime the Masters of the Universe get together, anywhere in the world, the public protests, because the world's corporations are killing our planet and the world's governments are refusing to do anything about it--because there's no longer any separation between the two--because injustice keeps getting worse--because the minority not willing to deal with all this by engaging in massive denial and distraction, feels it must DO SOMETHING. We have not yet found anything useful to do, but if the MOU come to our city, by God of course we're going to protest.
And then--doesn't matter if it's violence-loving USA, polite Canada, progressive Europe, or some third world country, exactly the same script rolls out.
I think part of the point is to convince the public it has no right to protest, equate protest with terrorism, frighten away potential protesters who've heard their friends' horror stories. Because someday we may win democracy the way the former Soviet republics did--by simply surging over the palaces and taking over. So we must be kept divided and intimidated.
Another point. In Genoa, according to reports, protesters captured on video some "Black Bloc" men climbing into a police van at the end of the day. These guys ran through crowds, finding a group of peaceful protesters and smashing something nearby, so the media would capture this and then when the police attacked the crowd, it would appear to be justified. But the police didn't attack the perpetrators, who by then would have moved on to the next peaceful group. What percentage of the Black Bloc is misguided genuine protesters and what percentage is infiltrators working to justify police violence? All I'm sure of is that there are some of each.
Realdim apparently is a bit naive, assuming the Black Bloc is all real, but stupid, protesters and it's their fault police get so violent these days. Although they were pretty violent back in the day, too, if you were black. S/he apparently thinks the cordon and police violence in Tornoto was justified--but take into account that the violence is never directed primarily at people trying to break into the cordon, but at anyone protesting, and at reporters covering the protests. I was at a protest in DC in 2000 (IMF/World Bank) in which someone gave a microphone to the crowd at large, and one person after another explained why they were there. I was quite impressed with how articulate these people were. Yes, there are inarticulate punks who just want to "fuck shit up" but they are a small minority, quite possibly smaller than the number who dress like them but are on the other side.
Catherine,
You forgot to mention that the cops lit their own vehicles on fire.