Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Fascination article in the NY Times about how video has given a truer perspective on what happened during the Republican National Convention protests. The video has both shown that the police did not employ "explicitly violent" tactics as well as helping prosecutors get guilty pleas or convictions from some protesters. But there were some cases where video actually cleared some people, like this story about Alexander Dunlop who was swept up into the fray when picking up sushi.
Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.Eek. You'd have to think some of the people who pleaded guilty are going to enlist the help of volunteer film archivists to find more tape evidence! And we're reminded of the guy who proved he wasn't part of a Critical Mass bike ride during the convention with his receipt from the 2nd Avenue Deli.
The NY Times has a graphic that shows the difference between cut and uncut footage from the convention. The feeling Gothamist got was even though we don't want a Big Brother society, nor do we want a reality television waking life all the time, there does seem to be some merit in being able to go to the video tape.
Photo above by Rion Nakaya for rion.nu
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA
The key part of this story isn't that video tape is clearing people. That's true. But the most noteworthy part of the story is that attempts were made by the prosecution to actually suppress video that did not support their cases, not giving defense access to it. That's frightening and scandalous.
The fact that even one person was arrested for minding his own business is terrible. But even worse than that is Bloomberg's refusal to admit that anyone was mistakenly arrested, and his full support of the NYPD's illegal seizures. That, combined with the obvious effort of the prosecution to "accidentally edit" out parts of a video that cleared an innocent person is scary. Why do people want to re-elect Bloomberg again?
Setting aside the arguable point regarding the scale and severity of police actions against protestors, I wonder if charges will be brought against the officers who clearly perjured themselves or provided false information to prosecutors. The after-the-fact testimony of the officers that Dwyer discusses in his story aren't varying interpretations of ambiguous situations; they are flat out lies. Given that prosecutors and the public have clear video documentation of these lies, it would be scandalous if these officers weren't severely reprimanded, if not subjected to criminal charges. A lack of follow-up by prosecutors at this point would in my mind taint all future testimony provided by cops in a court case. If there is no penalty against perjury in a criminal case, then I would just have to assume that police officers are simply testifying to whatever serves their case the best, regardless of the truth.
"Accidentally edited." Speaking as a video editor, this just doesn't happen. It actually takes effort to edit something, so it's seldom an accidental task. Somebody definitely was working the suppression of evidence angle and hoping to claim technical incompetence/glitch if uncovered.
I agree with Dave H's comment above. This will hurt the credibility of the NYPD if the officer that clearly perjured himself is not reprimanded in any way. It is totally ridiculous that they can go on the stand and make such statement despite video evidence of the contrary.
The cops who perjured themselves were aided and abetted by the prosecutors, who surely knew what the cops were up to (see especially the one officer who signed complaints in 4 cases where subsequent video revelations proved he was nowhere to be found). The cops can't be in the position to do this if the prosecutors don't put them there. Interesting also was the fact that the cops were named, but not the prosecutors.
Jen, I think it's worth clarifying that that this has nothing to do with 'big brother' and everything to do with citizen journalism. Although the Times doesn't come out and call it 'citizen journalism' or 'grassroots media' isn't this what it's all about? Regular people empowered through the creation of their own media to hold those in power accountable?
Unfortunately, I think this was exactly the sort of collateral damage the city decided it was willing to accept in clearing the streets of protesters during the convention.
Good that the sushi takeout guy got off the hook. Too bad that the anti-free speech 'protestors' that believe people don't have the right to congregate for a convention got the guy into this legal mess. There seems to be a number of convention protestor drama kings still treating us to their generic moveon histrionics, portraying themselves as taking a stand against 'the man' and whatnot.
Bob, I think you are lost. You may wish to consider posting that here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/
case in point.
1. Cops do that all the time (make shit up)
2. This is scary
3. Stalin was a big fan of editting photography
4. Without the cameras innocent people (some are more innocent than others ...) would be going to jail.
5. NYC is going to get sued big time.
6. The cops may be repremanded, but not the DA's office- shit goes downhill.
Bob, as a seemingly staunch defender of high constitutional principles like freedom of speech, it comes as some surprise to me that you would not also defend the right of due process. All this makes me think that maybe when the Minnow sank, your copy of the Constitution got torn off after the 2nd Amendment. I'd be happy to roll up a complete copy up for you, stick it in a bottle, and send it in your direction on the next outgoing tide.
T.A. - I've no doubt that I've been a far more effective activist in advocating due process and free speech issues than you or blike here. I just don't have a problem with a bunch of senior citizens in elephant hats getting together for a convention. I also don't have a problem with cops taking steps to see that they can do so without being spit on and harrassed. I actually agree that videocams are good insurance against out of control cops or protesters. I just think that the kneejerk responses of activists actually hurts their cause more than forwarding it. alan hale agrees with me on this.
Well, Bob, if a milquetoast like Alan Hale agrees with you, then I guess I better take my ball and go home!
Get serious, man.
bob, you're seriously confused. the protesters were not protesting the right to free speech, they were protesting a political agenda that they strongly disagreed with. they were expressing their views just like the neocons were and they were doing it in a legal manner. sure, you can single out the lone spitter or the other few disrespectful kids, but you know that's hardly representative of the tens of thousands participating in the protests. you know as well as i do that your 'anti-free speech' claim is an absurd stretch that doesn't even deserve this reply.