Gothamist: Civilian Complaint Review Board Vs. NYPD

streetcrimU

Thu, 11 May 2006 22:56:28 -0500

The undercover street crime cops who do the buy and busts for drugs are usually Black and hispanic cops. They don't last long as they're doing these operations in all boros and eventually, they'll get id'ed as the fuzz. It's the whitey cops that's the instigator in the protests. Don't worry, they're easy to spot, the accent my friend, make no mistake, the accent.

Guy

Thu, 11 May 2006 22:31:51 -0500

1) AGAIN, I concede that you did not label me as a screwball outright, but rather did it in an underhanded way. You are too quick to judge, dear nun. 2) It isn't "perhaps they did pose as protesters" it is PROVEN FACT uncovered many times in the course of many rallies, marches, and gatherings as recent as this year of our lord 2006. And NO perhaps it is not illegal for the police to do that, but perhaps it should be. And what if these staged seemingly unjustified arrests to incite the crowd turns out to be a full blown riot? Can they be culpable in starting it? And yes, undercover NYPD officer do troll for crimminals. But the difference between going undercover as a drug dealer and the instance that I mentioned is that they instigated rowdy behavior in an otherwise peaceful march/protest FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DECLARING THE MARCH AS BEING A DANGER TO THE REST OF THE PUBLIC THEREFORE GIVING THEMSELVES THE POWER TO STOP THE MARCH. 3) Please point out where I have peppered generalizations of you. 4) Yes, I have stated generalizations of the NYPD. But yes, I have sympathy for a majority of the police who work hard for little pay and often times are the targets of violence (and the targets of spying themselves as shown by videotapes zooming in on and marking specific NYPD officers protesting for a new contract some months ago). But as I have said earlier, through my own personal experience as a normal law abiding citizen, the difference in attitude they had towards me between when I was marching down Broadway protesting the war in Iraq and when I am just another guy on line with them at the deli to grab lunch, is wholly and obviously apparent. 5) I addressed the issue of free assembly in my first post. I understand the issue of public safety and agree that it is a major cause for concern. But highlighted by the RNC 2004, it was nearly impossible for organizers to obtain permits to march, gather, or otherwise protest in a legal manner in any way that was practical. In the end they were given permits that were extremely compromised that did not accommodate the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of citizens who showed up to protest. 6) A cop issuing a ticket or making an arrest for a crime is his job I agree. But the issue at hand were arrests that have turned out to be unjustified because of reasons such as unintelligible instructions to protesters that led to mass confusion and not enough time for protesters to comply with the NYPD. In the case of undercover stings that I mentioned, they instigated the crowd just enough to declare it a danger to the public in order to cut short the rally as soon as they could. I'm certainly not a lawyer but to me the legality of that is questionable. Do you think the authors of the constitution would agree with those tactics? 7) Finally, by putting "peaceful protest" in quotes you have once again mocked me in a very underhanded, passive-aggressive way. And exactly what are those people holding those signs "indicating 9/11 was an inside job" guilty of to the police? That is the most telling statement you have written this entire thread. You have now implied that protesters excercising their right to free speech and free assembly are subject to scorn and contempt by the NYPD or in other words, biased justice.

blaktalons

Thu, 11 May 2006 19:06:56 -0500

I see PC kelly was pissed the letter was leaked. Even the CCRB whose board is completed picked by the NYPD and the Mayor, they did this. I wonder why? Was it because Hernandez had a run in with an asshole cop? Karma's a bitchass, aint it?

The Red Nun

Thu, 11 May 2006 18:33:19 -0500

I didn't label you as a screwball. Yes I phrased the question as a trick to make you see what you said "undercover cops as decoys" — are you f-ing kidding me? Perhaps they did pose as protestors, how is that illegal? (it's not illegal for the police to lie to you when trying to get a confession, in fact it's standard practice in police departments throughout the world, it's not moral, but not illegal). The cops do it to everyone. They crawl the subways and streets looking for out of character people who fuck with the system. You mean to tell me, that ALL of the protestors at the RNC were all law abiding civilians? I doubt that very much. I'm sure a small percetage are ex cons, trouble makers, dems and liberal hippies. I know a few protestors who were republicans as well. You peppered your statements with generalizations of me, and especially the NYPD. For the most part the 55K NYPD officers are good people doing their job and there are a few bad eggs. As I'm sure your office has great people with a few bad breeds as well. As for free assembly. Yes the constitution says free assembly is allowed. However, under that it also says assembly needs permits. If you do not have a permit, you get ticketed or arrested under the law. Did you know you need a permit to use a tripod anywhere in nyc public domain? If you get a cop doing his job he can ticket you if you do have a tripod permit (most cops will tell you the law and tell you to move on), that's the law. within your "peaceful protest" i did however see a lot of signs indicating 9/11 was an inside job... yeah that'll go well with the police... guilt by association.

New York Inquirer

Thu, 11 May 2006 16:10:18 -0500

Trying to justify officers antagonizing protestors on public streets is like saying "she asked for it." How does the circular argument 1) Cops antagonize protestor 2) Protestor fights back [or acts in self defense] 3) Cop arrests protestor - possibly fall anywhere near the realm of justice? What's more, yes, the Constitution does guarantee a right to assemble. There is no stipulation that you must let mounted offers stampede through a crowd. nyieditor www.nyinquirer.com

Guy

Thu, 11 May 2006 15:51:49 -0500

So you weren't implying that because I pointedly criticized the NYPD that you believed I was a "9/11 conspiracy theorist"? The particular way you phrased that question leads me to believe that you had already labeled me as a screwball. Why didn't you ask if I was a left-wing liberal? Or a hippie? Why call me a label with connotations of a tinfoil hat wearing nut? If you meant otherwise, nun, I'll apologize. I'm guy enough, but please, don't be patronizing by lecturing me on the difference between a question and a statement. On the topic of undercover police: An undercover cop posing as a protester was blatantly arrested right in the thick of a crowded march by uniformed officers for no reason whatsoever. Common sense dictates that other protesters seeing an injustice done will obviously rally around one of their own and that's exactly what happened. As soon as there was a commotion (nothing physical mind you, but chants demanding that the protester be released) the NYPD deemed the march to be out of control therefore giving themselves a reason to break up the rally early and/or arrest others in that group. I've experienced nothing but disgust and contempt from NYPD officers as a peaceful, law abiding protester. I was never dressed in anything other than what I would wear to work, a casual business office. Outside of that context they suddenly don't find me so repulsive anymore. So out of PERSONAL experience I feel that there is blatant discrimmination against anti-war/anti-bush protesters and there was a very apparant effort by Bloomberg and the NYPD to keep protesters from protesting during the 2004 RNC.

The Red Nun

Thu, 11 May 2006 15:19:08 -0500

*What's with all these conservative bitches on here lately?* or is it devils advocate?

homeopt

Thu, 11 May 2006 15:11:30 -0500

conservative bitches got to eat too. that's why i feed them man-meat every chance i get.

gurlsgonewild

Thu, 11 May 2006 15:05:03 -0500

What's with all these conservative bitches on here lately? Is this still NYC?

The Red Nun

Thu, 11 May 2006 14:59:49 -0500

I didn't label you or everyone. I asked YOU a question. Careful how YOU label people who ask questions. I didn't say YOU were a conspirator, I ask IF you were a conspirator? Two different things entirely. Here's a quick break down of how questions and statements work: Question: Mr. President, are you a liar? Statement: Mr. President, you are a liar. (!) Although the NY Times is a good paper, they're not always on point. Here's the deal with undercover agents: if they allegedly do antogonize protesters there's nothing wrong with it. What's the deal with protesters antagonizing protesters of their protests? I saw a protester (against the war) beat up a person for the war. IS this justified? Of course not. If a Christian anit-abortionist kills a doctor, abortion does not stop. Cops also "antagonize" drug dealers, it's not entrapment, it's called common sense. You're there to protest. Have a cause and speak your peace peacefully, and ignore "bad eggs". Fighting with the cops will not help the protest or your stake in society, protesters lose all credibility when they fight cops. Basically, my theory was proven. I asked you a simple question i.e. entrapmant, and you labeled me an unitelligent person, immediately. A+++ and a gold Star! good work, Guy.

Tim N.

Thu, 11 May 2006 14:26:42 -0500

Why not farm out the protesters? We've already farmed out freedom of speech and other civil rights.

goJets

Thu, 11 May 2006 14:23:26 -0500

I love how undercover cops infiltrate community meetings and they stick out like a sore thumb with their sports jerseys, faded jeans and sneakers. The minority undercover cops blend in much more easily. But how long these minority undercover cops will be doing this when their fellow cops still see "them" as the "perp"????????????????? Let the white cops do undercover work.

Guy

Thu, 11 May 2006 14:06:51 -0500

Oh please, don't start flinging mud. That statement is a proven fact reported weeks (months?) ago by The NYTimes in a series of articles chronicaling the NYPD's excessive "security" measures, including an article about infrared night vision technology in helicoptors being abused to a point where a couple was spied on during an intimate date on a rooftop. You calling me a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" shows your quickness to label and brand everyone who doesn't agree with you as a wacko. Good job making yourself seem intelligent.

pugsley

Thu, 11 May 2006 14:05:30 -0500

maybe Governors Island could be turned into a protestors theme park run by the NYCLU. out of work actors could be employed to dress up as cops and conventioneers wearing elephant hats. guests could parade around with placards and hurl invective until they fully sublimate their frustrations with life. at the end of the ride they would be comforted by an animatronic anti-free speech activist Norm Siegel.

The Red Nun

Thu, 11 May 2006 14:00:56 -0500

*How about the instances of undercover cops antagonizing the police and thus getting "arrested" in order to rile the rest of the crowd into become unruly so that the police can in turn start detaining them too?* Where's your proof that this occurs? Or you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

Guy

Thu, 11 May 2006 13:41:03 -0500

How about the instances of undercover cops antagonizing the police and thus getting "arrested" in order to rile the rest of the crowd into become unruly so that the police can in turn start detaining them too? Or the city making it so incredibly difficult for protests to go on in the first place? I realize that there needs to be some sort of order and a high regard for public safety, but if the very entity that is being protested is ALSO the one that dictates when, where, and how the protests are going to be, there is something very very wrong with that picture.

The Red Nun

Thu, 11 May 2006 13:10:30 -0500

I have friends who have worked, in the past, for the CCRB and more often than not, the NYPD are in the right and the "perps" are in the wrong. 95%–5% It was quite amusing hearing stories of people who think their rights have been violated. If you break the law or do not follow police instruction, the police can detain you, sometimes forcefully if necessary. Also, if you do not have or give proper ID, the police can detain you without lawyer representation, there's nothing in the constitution that says differently—it's not unconstitutional. I was at the RNC taking photos and there were many protestors who had video camera's. I witnessed many of them antagonize the police, and when the police reacted, that's when the protestors turned their cameras on. The police counteracted that tactic with their own tactic of filming the protestors, it worked.

ac

Thu, 11 May 2006 12:51:54 -0500

Kelly and Smolka should be fired, if not in jail.