Republican National Convention coverage
Photo by Olivier Douliery, Abaca Press
By Carlos Miller
As John McCain touted the virtues of freedom during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week, hundreds of citizens, including a significant number of journalists, were getting arrested for the crime of “unlawful assembly.”
They were rounded up like cattle by indistinguishable police officers clad in riot gear and gas masks. They were doused with pepper spray and suffocated with smoke bombs. And they were stripped of their rights and dignity and in many cases, their journalistic credentials and cameras.
By the time McCain had finished his speech, more than 300 people had been arrested. And so far, not a single account that any had been acting out in violence.
By the end of the week, more than 800 people had been arrested, including more than 40 journalists. Here is partial list of journalists that have been arrested so far.
Thomas Jefferson, the Father of Democracy, would have been disgusted, judging by his following comment.
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
Jefferson would have been especially peeved at the arrests of the journalists.
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Unlike the protests that took place earlier in the week which were marred with violence, Thursday’s demonstration was peaceful, which is why police resorted to charging them with “unlawful assembly” instead of “conspiracy to riot” (a shaky charge in itself considering almost half of those arrests were thrown out by the County Attorney’s Office the following day).
In other words, their only crime was continuing to protest after their permit had expired. Some protesters even claim that their permit was originally scheduled to expire at 7 p.m. instead of 5 p.m.
The fact that you even need a permit to protest in the first place is about as unconstitutional as getting arrested for photographing police in public. Even more so considering that the right to peacefully assemble is specifically stated in the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
According to Lectric Law Library, unlawful assembly means the following:
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY – A disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons who meet together with an intent mutually to assist each other in the execution of some unlawful enterprise of a private nature, with force and violence; if they move forward towards its execution, it is then a rout and if they actually execute their design, it amounts to a riot.
And the First Amendment Center describes peaceful assembly in the following:
According to the Supreme Court, it is imperative to protect the right to peaceful assembly, even for those with whose speech we disagree, “in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means.”
Last Thursday’s disregard for the Constitution shouldn’t be surprising considering that earlier in the week, Sarah Palin mocked Barack Obama for wanting to give Guantanamo suspects basic Constitutional rights.
“Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights,” Palin said
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with Palin because it ruled in June that Guantanamo inmates do have fundamental legal rights, including habeas corpus, which gives inmates the right to challenge their detention.
If they are, in fact, Al Qaida terrorists, then let it be proven in court, not in the Oval Office. And not by some governor of Alaska, which is as far as you can get from Guantanamo without leaving the continental United States
Because if they’re allowed to strip the Guantanamo inmates of their Constitutional rights, then what’s going to stop them from throwing away the key the next time they lock you up for unlawful assembly?
Check out the video below.
Popularity: 3% [?]
12 responses so far ↓
1 Jeanne Roberts // Sep 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Our Constitutional Freedoms are gone under the neocons, who commit gross violations of both legal code and common decency and would like nothing more than to round the rest of us up in camps. The RNC was the first step in making American fascism public.
2 Scott // Sep 11, 2008 at 8:52 AM
One, if this were a fascist government, then all of those reporters would either be in jail for years or dead. This country is not fascist and is nowhere close to being it.
Oh and Carlos, the permits for the assembly’s are for public safety, you know closing roads and such and having police officers there to make sure things don’t get out of hand. But charging into peaceful protesters is just wrong.
3 Ms Calabaza // Sep 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Hey Carlos,
is that you on the left, in black?
4 Scott // Sep 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM
If that’s him then who took the picture?
5 OrdinaryMaine // Sep 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Well, the fascists were socialists so I am not sure that particular comparison is fair or accurate. The same things happened in Denver. This is a government run amuck issue where both parties bear some blame.
6 Ms Calabaza // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:22 AM
“if that’s him, then who took the picture?”
good point . . . arrest him, the miscreant!
7 Carlos Miller // Sep 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM
You guys don’t know how much I would have loved to have been photographing and videotaping the protests outside the RNC.
But considering I am on probation, it’s probably a good thing I did not go.
8 enhager // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 PM
I’ve heard from some of your readers that they would really appreciate cutlines with your photos? IS that possible? Thanks
9 Al Crespo // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:51 PM
To My News Media Colleagues,
In the aftermath of the arrest of over 40 members of the news media in St Paul, and the general disrespect and manhandling of countless other members of the media it has become apparent that in St Paul there was a tacit acceptance, if not a articulated policy by police leadership to target members of the news media for arrest and physical abuse, including pepper spray and physical assaults.
In the heated atmosphere that has followed these arrests there has been some mumbling that this was all part of a larger exercise intended to test the strategies required to control the press during a time of civil unrest or the imposition of Marshall Law.
I would largely reject that argument as both extremist and wishful thinking by those who would use it to further a political agenda. Political conventions have always provided a unique venue for those dissatisfied with the behavior of government to come and vent their anger and/or frustration, and all too often they have occurred in cities with police departments poorly trained or equipped to deal with these kinds of massive protests.
While there is no question that Americans seem far more willing than one would have expected only a few years ago to tolerate armed police in riot gear wandering through their downtown streets, there are vast degrees of difference between what occurred in Denver and St Paul and the possibility of Marshall Law being imposed in our country for political reasons.
While the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago remains the singular reference for most Americans when it comes to convention protests and bad behavior by both protesters and police, the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angels certainly must come in a close second. The manner in which the police beat protesters and fired indiscriminate rounds of rubber bullets into a largely retreating crowd makes anything that happened in either Denver or St Paul pale by comparison.
As one of the photojournalists and reporters who were attacked in Los Angeles – I was shot repeatedly by rubber bullets – I believe that any claims that what happened in St Paul represented a rehearsal of some kind for corralling and silencing a piddling number of “independent” or free-lance new media on the streets who would be on the streets attempting to get “the real story” during a far more serious event of civil unrest is a fanciful pipe dream by those who spend way too much time watching apocalyptic movies.
What I believe really happened in St Paul was nothing more than another depressing example of run-of-the-mill bad policing by police departments from as far away as Texas and Arizona who – even after the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars – were not adequately trained or experienced in dealing with large numbers of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, and who were more or less given a wink and a nod to behave badly as a result of inadequate supervision that condoned the abuses that took place through a lack of strong command supervision.
At street level its not the police chiefs you have to rely on for control, but the sergeants. And in St Paul the sergeants were the ones who failed to rein in the cops spraying photographers with pepper spray and generally targeting the media.
IT’S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
Because I have specialized in protests as part of a long-term photo project on the First Amendment that I’ve been working on for over 12 years, I’ve developed a broad range of experience and institutional memory on how police all over the country have conducted themselves during these kinds of events that allows me to sense – even from afar – when the planning for these events isn’t going well. Early in June I started tracking the preparations for the events in Denver and St Paul, and by mid-July – a full 6 weeks before the first protest march hit the streets – I concluded from the public reports that the situation on the streets during the conventions could turn nasty both as a result of the slant of the coverage of the planned protests in the host cities and more importantly by the response, and in some instances the failure of response by public officials to often basic questions regarding the planning for these events.
Unfortunately, I was at the time involved with personal matter that was consuming almost all of my time, so in an act that I concede was not the best effort I could have taken to communicate my concerns about these possible problems I cobbled together a letter which I hoped might alert some of my colleagues to the possibility of what might happen. On July 16th I started sending this letter out in an email to members of the Denver and St Paul news media, the regional directors of the NPPA in both Colorado and Minnesota, and I also posted it on the LIGHTSTALKER photojournalism website.
Because I didn’t have time to write a completely new letter I wrote a brief cover letter and attached a copy of a letter that I had written in September of 2003 to the Mayor and Miami City Commission which detailed a set of concerns I had raised about a proposed ordinance covering the pending FTAA protests that were planned to take place in November 2003, and which I felt reflected a similar set of concerns of what might happen in Denver and St Paul.
As a member of the media my concern was about how I and my colleagues would be able to work safely in a chaotic environment, and the topics I addressed dealt with the relationship between the police and the news media. Below are the 4 topics I focused on in 2003, and which I felt were important enough to refocus on in 2008. Instead of Miami, substitute Denver and/or St Paul in the topic headings below and judge for yourselves how prescient my concerns were. (A copy of my complete email is attached at the end of this piece.)
TOPICS OF CONCERN
ISSUE NUMBER ONE: WHAT WILL THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BE AS ARTICULATED THROUGH ORDINANCE AND/OR PUBLISHED POLICY BY THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWARDS THE NEWS MEDIA IF THEY CONDUCT SWEEPS AND/OR ROUNDUPS OF UNPERMITTED PROTESTERS ENGAGED IN MARCHES AND OTHER GROUP ACTIVITIES DESIGNATED AS UNLAWFUL?
ISSUE NUMBER TWO: WHAT RESTRICTIONS WILL THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ORDINANCE AND/OR PUBLISHED POLICY, ENACT TO INSURE THE POLICE NOT ATTACKING MEMBERS OF THE NEWS MEDIA TO PREVENT THEM FROM REPORTING AND/OR PHOTOGRAPHING ACTIONS THAT THEY WOULD PREFER WERE NOT REPORTED?
ISSUE NUMBER THREE: WHAT WILL THE POLICY BE REGARDING THE NEWS MEDIA’S ABILITY TO CARRY BOTH TEAR GAS MASKS AND RIOT HELMETS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE PROPOSED PROVISIONS OF CITY OF MIAMI PROPOSED ORDINANCE (J-03-722), AMENDING CHAPTER 54 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI?
ISSUE NUMBER FOUR: WHAT IS, OR WILL BE, THE PUBLICLY ARTICULATED POLICY OF THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND ALL OF THE OTHER POLICE DEPARTMENTS DURING THIS PERIOD REGARDING THE USE OF LETHAL WEAPONS, AND THE FIRING OF RUBBER BULLETS AND/OR BEAN BAGS?
My letter in 2003 resulted in the proposed ordinance being rewritten to allow for gas masks and riot helmets, and for Miami Police Chief John Timony visiting the offices of the Miami Herald where he supposedly promised that Herald staff wouldn’t be harassed if they wore something that identified them as Herald employees. The Herald reporters and photographers all ended up wearing distinctive traffic vests, and everyone else in the news media was left to fend for themselves.
WHO SPEAKS FOR THE NEWS MEDIA?
In the aftermath of this latest round of bad behavior by the police in St Paul I have concluded that there has to be some better and more comprehensive method in which the interests of the news media – especially the physical safety against police attack – covering major protests and civil unrest can be articulated and protected.
It is in the public’s interest that reporters and photographers be present during these kinds of events, and while the police have a valid concern about the news media not getting in their way, they do not have a legitimate justification to either bar the news media from doing their job by witnessing what goes on, or striking out against them when they do.
It’s nice that a number of news organizations have expressed some concern after the fact for how some of the media were treated in St Paul, and it was nice to read on their website that Bob Carey, the president of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) sent a “strongly worded letter to the St. Paul, MN, chief of police objecting to the recent arrests of credentialed, legitimate photojournalists who were covering protesters who were conducting an anti-war march outside the Republican National Convention site.”
It would have been a lot nicer, and perhaps more effective if the NPPA, and groups including the AP, Reuters, Getty as well as other photo agencies and most certainly the major networks had sent letters prior to the conventions and/or requested meetings with the various police departments to discuss the parameters for their reporters and photojournalists who would be on the streets during these convention protests.
Now, its true that free-lancers and “independent” reporters and photojournalists can’t always depend on the kindness of these organizations to look out for their interests, but a strong demonstration of concern for the welfare of their employees by these organizations I believe would have an inclusive effect on how the police treated ALL the reporters and photojournalists on the streets during the events.
It is of little practical value or consequence for the president of a group like the NPPA, or any other news media organization for that matter to write a letter after the fact complaining that some of their members were treated roughly by the police. What’s happened has happened, and few of us will be returning to St Paul anytime soon, if ever.
Therefore I believe that it is incumbent that the members of the major news organizations start demanding that their employers step up to the plate before the next major protest or demonstration takes place and demand from the public officials and police departments that they respect and honor the proposition that the news media is there to report on what happens, and that what we do is a First Amendment right than can and must be protected.
This is an issue that warrant serious discussion and action because there is little expectation that major protests around the country will end after this presidential election.
ITS NOT THE ANARCHISTS I WORRY ABOUT
In closing, I must also mention the claims that are now surfacing about the Secret Service notifying some of the mainstream media about their employees being the targets of attacks by protesters. I was tipped off about that early on by an AP shooter, and I have to say that I not only saw none of that – nor ever had a sense that I or any other member of the media was a target of the protesters in St Paul – but rather, my experience over the years is that these events are so blanketed by undercover cops either playing the part of protesters for the day, or of cops who have infiltrated some of these groups over a period of months and who on more than one occasion have acted as agent provocateurs – I don’t believe there isn’t an anarchist cell in the country that isn’t infiltrated by undercover cops – that I have always been more apprehensive of a rogue cop initiating something stupid than being attacked by some out-of-control teenage protester wearing a black tee shirt and a mask.
Not withstanding the occasional shouts, mostly from anarchists about not taking their picture, or the hands outstretched to try and block us from doing so, which is all part of the rough and tumble of these events, I believe that ALL protesters recognize that were it not for the photojournalists who often find themselves standing between the protesters and the police, their blood would cover the streets after some of these events.
A week after the conventions have ended, the half-life of what happened in St Paul, and to a far lesser degree in Denver is already fading. The lessons are there however for those who want to remember them. As George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Sincerely,
Al Crespo
Miami, FL
AL CRESPO is a photojournalist whose book Protest In The Land Of Plenty, chronicles the protests and demonstrations that took place in America between 1997 and 2001. He was the lead plaintiff in the landmark federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department after the 2000 Democratic Convention which forced the LA police department to rewrite it’s policies and procedures regarding the access of the media during events declared to be unlawful assemblies. He has covered over 250 major and minor protests to date and continues to cover protests and demonstrations as part of his First Amendment project on the exercise of free speech.
JULY 2008 LETTER TO DENVER, ST PAUL, NPPA AND LIGHTSTALKER NEWS MEDIA COMMUNITIES
Dear News Media Colleagues,
It seems we have a case of deja vu all over again. I read this morning where the various counties surrounding Denver are passing ‘anti-protest ordinances’ much like Los Angels and Philadelphia did in 2000, and Boston and New York did in 2004.
In 2003, Miami went through this same drill in anticipation of the FTAA protests, and below is a copy of the letter which I wrote at the time to the Mayor and members of the Miami City Commission, which was also copied to a large part of the news media in South Florida detailing what I felt were serious concerns having to do with the inability of the members of the news media being able to protect themselves during any protests that resulted in folks being tear gassed and/or shot at with rubber bullets.
I believe that the issues that I raised in this letter in 2003, are every bit as important and relevant today for Denver and St Paul as they were in Miami and rather than reinvent the wheel I am attaching a copy of my 2003 letter which spells out what I think are issues that could very well affect those of us on the streets during the conventions.
As a working member of the news media, I am most especially concerned – having been shot with rubber bullets in in Los Angeles in 2000 – about the restrictions on carrying protective gear such as a riot helmet and tear gas mask.
For those members of the news media who work for corporations that are subject to OSHA laws, these restrictions create a myriad of health and legal problems, even before the issue of the degree – or lack of – coverage of these events that will result as a result of these ordinances.
I believe that the ACLU and the various members of the Denver news media needs to seriously review the proposed ordinances, and take steps to protect ALL the members of the news media from these sanctions.
I must also point out that the Denver news media folks need to take the position that in standing up for members of the news media that they do so for EVERYONE and not just their employees and home town folks. Fortunately in 2003, the NPPA stepped up to the plate and got involved and were instrumental in helping to get the ordinance rewritten to allow us to carry gas masks and riot helmets.
Even with that, we still had a nasty situation where after my letter and the concerns that it raised, the Miami Chief of Police went to the Miami Herald and assured them that their staff would not be subjected to any type of harassment as long as they were properly identifiable. That is why the Miami Herald staff on the streets during those protests wore traffic vests. Everyone else was more or less left to fend for themselves.
I would urge my colleagues in both Denver and St Paul to pay special attention to these temporary ordinances that are being implemented, and to make sure that we don’t get caught in a situation where we are subject to injury for doing our job.
Thanks,
al crespo
MY 2003 LETTER
September 11, 2003
Mayor Manuel A. Diaz
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Joe M. Sanchez
Commissioner Tomas P. Regalado
Commissioner Arthur Teele, Jr.
Miami City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
RE: ISSUES CONCERNING THE NEWS MEDIA AND THE UPCOMING FTAA PROTESTS IN NOVEMBER
Dear Mayor Diaz and Members of the Miami City Commission:
The upcoming Free Trade Area of the America’s Ministerial meeting to be held in Miami this November is, as many with knowledge of these kinds of events are now conceding, a completely new and uncharted situation facing the City of Miami, and other cities and municipalities within Miami-Dade County.
As I write this letter, the City of Miami Police Department has caused to be introduced an amendment to Chapter 54 of the City Code, which the Miami Herald reported this morning to be a “controversial new ordinance,” seeking to restrict “objects such as glass containers, gas masks and poles to hold up sign,” among other items.
In light of this request, and in light of what is now known about the actions of both protesters and police at previous protests of this kind, I feel compelled as a member of the working news media who will be on the streets covering this protest, to raise the following concerns on behalf of myself and my colleagues.
I believe that it is critically important that clear public policy be articulated on the following issues in order that there be as little confusion, or after the fact disputes regarding the rights and responsibilities of the media in reporting on this protest. I must add parenthetically, that some of these issues impact also on protesters and the average citizen who might choose to witness these events. I do not feel empowered or privileged to speak on their behalf because I believe their interests are best served and supported by groups such as the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, the editorial boards of the local newspapers and television stations, and by the various leaders of the protest groups coming to Miami, who I would suspect have already opened discussions with the police.
Before starting, allow me to support my standing to raise these issues with you.
Since 1997, I have been engaged in a long-term historical project to photograph contemporary protest movements in America. During this period, I have attended well over 100 major and minor protests, including the WTO, IMF/World Bank, both 2000 political conventions, and all that followed, numerous Haitian protests, and all of the protests associated with Elian Gonzalez. One outcome of this project has been the recent release of my award winning book, Protest In The Land Of Plenty.
I have, I believe it’s safe to claim, attended more protests than any other American in recent time, and in that capacity I have had an opportunity to witness the behavior of both protesters and police, and have been subjected to the antipathy of both for favoring neither. The below concerns are based on my first hand observations and experiences.
ISSUE NUMBER ONE: WHAT WILL THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BE AS ARTICULATED THROUGH ORDINANCE AND/OR PUBLISHED POLICY BY THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWARDS THE NEWS MEDIA IF THEY CONDUCT SWEEPS AND/OR ROUNDUPS OF UNPERMITTED PROTESTERS ENGAGED IN MARCHES AND OTHER GROUP ACTIVITIES DESIGNATED AS UNLAWFUL?
In virtually all of the previous large protests held in this country in recent years protesters have taken to the streets to carry out protest marches without being given “permits.” In some instances, the police, for various reasons have allowed the protest marches to work their way to a conclusion without stepping in and conducting large-scale arrests. In the cities where the police have engaged in large-scale arrests – most notably Washington, D.C., – everyone within the perimeters established by the police have been arrested, including members of the news media and the general public.
What will the policy of the police in Miami be? Will the news media be allowed to cross through the police perimeter and continue to report and photograph what happens, or will they be subjected to arrest?
ISSUE NUMBER TWO: WHAT RESTRICTIONS WILL THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ORDINANCE AND/OR PUBLISHED POLICY, ENACT TO INSURE THE POLICE NOT ATTACKING MEMBERS OF THE NEWS MEDIA TO PREVENT THEM FROM REPORTING AND/OR PHOTOGRAPHING ACTIONS THAT THEY WOULD PREFER WERE NOT REPORTED?
It has been an unfortunate practice in previous protests throughout the country that at some point, individual police officers, either lacking strong supervision, or in rarer cases, given free reign by their superiors, have engaged in uncontrolled attacks on members of the news media as a result of the media’s efforts to record unlawful or excessive police tactics used against protesters.
I have been personally subjected to this kind of behavior on numerous occasions across the country, and can attest that on just one night during the Elian Gonzalez protests, I was chased by Miami Police on 3 separate occasions while attempting to photograph them manhandling individuals they had thrown to the ground while placing them under arrest.
On one of these occasions I managed to take a photograph of a UNIVISION, Channel 23 colleague who was not as successful in fleeing, and was himself arrested while trying to shoot video of the Miami Police arresting a woman on the corner of Flagler Street and NW 58th Avenue. UNIVISION attorneys in their successful legal challenge to this arrest used the photograph.
This is a very serious problem, which must be addressed on a political, as well as a policy and training level. Chief Timony has been quoted as saying that Miami does not need to have photographs of police beating on protesters. As a citizen I agree. As a photojournalist, and on behalf of my colleagues, we do not want to be attacked, beaten or have our equipment broken or seized if we attempt to take such photographs.
ISSUE NUMBER THREE: WHAT WILL THE POLICY BE REGARDING THE NEWS MEDIA’S ABILITY TO CARRY BOTH TEARGAS MASKS AND RIOT HELMETS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE PROPOSED PROVISIONS OF CITY OF MIAMI PROPOSED ORDINANCE (J-03-722), AMENDING CHAPTER 54 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI?
Today, the Miami City Commission passed on first reading, a temporary amendment to Chapter 54 of the Miami City Code limiting, restricting and/or outlawing 13 different categories of items including everything from water pistols, to sticks for signs, to tear gas masks, riot helmets and body armor.
It is not my interest or desire to get into the middle of the debate over the merits, or lack thereof concerning this amendment. I am sure that both civil libertarians and representatives of numerous protests groups have their opinions and concerns, and are mapping out their own strategies to deal with this ordinance should it become law.
My concern, and I believe that it will be the concern of many of my colleagues once they learn of this proposed ordinance, is the prohibition of tear gas masks and riot helmets, and the question of whether it will it apply to them.
It is a reasonable observation that the language of the ordinance as it currently exists would prohibit through it’s lack of definition of the term “any person,” the police from having any of these items as well as the protesters. The police, would I’m sure, claim that in fact that was not accurate nor the intent of the proposed ordinance since they were not engaged in the protest, and this ordinance is directed specifically at the protesters.
In accepting that reasoning, we in the news media are also not engaged in the protests. We are reporting on what happens at the protests. Therefore, this ordinance should neither on its face, nor in its language preclude members of the news media from being allowed to carry tear gas masks and riot helmets for their protection.
In the present version of the ordinance, body armor is prohibited “for the purposes of enabling the wearer to engage or attempt to engage in unlawful activity.” At the same time bulletproof vests are prohibited without regard to intent. While my personal concern is for a riot helmet, I am sure that some of my colleagues would be equally concerned for the ability to wear a bulletproof vest.
Furthermore, since many members of the news media are reporting on these protests as “employees” of both large and small corporations subject to the provisions of OSHA, the acknowledgment in the ordinance that the tear gas masks are designed to protect, “ the respiratory tract and face against irritating, noxious or poisonous gases,” raises a very serious question of health concerns and the legal liability of these corporations knowingly sending their employees to cover these protests when, regardless of the intent of this amendment, common knowledge and experience would allow reasonable people to conclude that there continues to exist a high degree of probability these protests will get out of hand
and that the police will employ tear gas, and possibly engage in firing rubber bullets and/or bean bags.
If members of the news media are allowed to protect themselves against tear gas and projectiles throughout the rest of the world, there is no reason why that right should be denied us in Miami.
This issue merits further deliberation and discussion on how to accommodate the safety concerns and legal liabilities of the news media.
ISSUE NUMBER FOUR: WHAT IS, OR WILL BE, THE PUBLICLY ARTICULATED POLICY OF THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND ALL OF THE OTHER POLICE DEPARTMENTS DURING THIS PERIOD REGARDING THE USE OF LEATHAL WEAPONS, AND THE FIRING OF RUBBER BULLETS AND/OR BEAN BAGS?
I cannot express to all of you who receive this letter the seriousness of this issue. As one of over 300 individuals, including protesters, bystanders and news media who were shot by the Los Angeles Police Department with rubber bullets and beans bags on the first evening of the 2000 Democratic Convention, this is an issue fraught with medical and legal ramifications, including not only the possibility of great personal injury to individuals, but very serious legal liability for the City of Miami.
Rubber bullets can, and do kill people. They certainly have been known to seriously injure and/or maim people. One young woman in Los Angeles lost an eye that evening, and had I turned my head in either direction by as little as 2 inches I too could have lost an eye, or been far more seriously injured by the rubber bullet that hit me in the temple.
The conventional explanation and policy for using these weapons is that the rubber bullets and bean bags are supposed to be shot into the street, and as they skip off of the street, they are intended to hit people in the legs acting as a deterrence.
Far too often, the practice of the police, as amply documented, has been to fire directly at people’s bodies and heads, and as the police in Los Angeles demonstrated, to wantonly open fire on everyone, whether they be protesters, bystanders and/or news media.
What is the articulated policy of the Miami Police going to be on this issue?
IN CONCLUSION
It is a given in this country that the news media has both a right under the First and Fourth Amendments, and an obligation under historic and acknowledged public consent to cover and report on events that can and do irrupt into civil disturbances as long as they do so without interfering with police operations.
The issues I have raised above go to the ability of the news media’s ability to carry out this responsibility without in turn becoming a target or victim of the very police who’s actions will be of great public interest during the upcoming protest.
I do not believe that any of the concerns that I have raised will impede on the ability of the police to carry out their functions fully during these protests, and I believe that a sensible and articulated series of policy directives covering these concerns will allow myself and my
colleagues to carry out our function and responsibility of reporting on these protests to our fellow citizens without fear of harassment, arrest or injury.
I hope that this letter will provide you with insight to issues that the City of Miami has not faced before, and that it will be seen as an effort to deal constructively with these issues.
Yours truly,
Al Crespo
Cc: Chief John Timony, Miami Police Department
Joe Arriola, Miami City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, Miami City Attorney
10 Scott // Sep 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM
That is the longest blog comment I have ever seen in my natural born life. I mostly agree with you too.
11 Constantine // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I would have loved to distribute AK-47s with 100 round drums and tactical gas masks to ALL protesters present. To hell with the traitor police! They are not on own side! They are pawns of the traitorous federal government. Terrorism? Please! The police were the only “terrorists” present! Wake up people!
12 Body Armor // Jan 4, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I'm good to go. I'd be lost without it. I would like to personally thank you for your outstanding product.
body armor
Leave a Comment