Gothamist: City Doesn't Want to Release 2004 RNC Arrest Records

edEx

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:40:10 -0500

#32, HUH?: i never discounted or ignored any of what happened during the RNC. i never sided with the nypd with their use of false video footage. what i was saying above was explaining the law as it stands; constitutional rights on detainment, not arrest. i saw a lot of stuff (obviously not all) happen during the RNC. i saw a dragon go up into a fireball on 7th avenue, no one was arrested for that. i saw naked people protesting on 7th avenue and they were only arrested after they started to climb onto some of the structures in the area. i saw a bunch of very well trained and educated rengades repell down the plaza hotel and hang a giant sign (that was super cool), they were arrested for a number of offenses most notably assault on a police officer. i saw people stepping out of the protesting pens, they were arrested for violating permit law. i saw a bunch of southern republican kids get arrested for trying to assault protesters. i saw people throwing things at the police and anyone who walked by... etc etc like i said, i'm not trying to say that all the arrests were justified, they weren't. with that said all i was stating was how the situations are handled by law. some were handled well others not so well.

anonymass

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:56:31 -0500

I think you know why. He's one of those crew-cut head wanna-be LE types.

HUH?

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:12:46 -0500

edEx, a citation is from an article that was posted in another comment above, it was the link to the NY Times. Look up in Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=kyne+wohl+%22new+york+times%22 An excerpt: A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed complaints. A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive, lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the convention. For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors. Among them was Alexander Dunlop, who said he was arrested while going to pick 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. Seven months after the convention at Madison Square Garden, criminal charges have fallen against all but a handful of people arrested that week. Of the 1,670 cases that have run their full course, 91 percent ended with the charges dismissed or with a verdict of not guilty after trial. Many were dropped without any finding of wrongdoing, but also without any serious inquiry into the circumstances of the arrests, with the Manhattan district attorney's office agreeing that the cases should be "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal." I am not receiving any glee from trying to say "i told you so," I am just honestly curious how you or any other reasonable American would willfully ignore this type of evidence. Apparently the evidence was good enough for the court. Why is it not good enough for you?

edEx

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:58:48 -0500

were the charges dropped or are you making up this *Literally hundreds of them were *proven* to be fabrications* please cite these alleged fabrications.

edEx

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:50:15 -0500

your reading comprehension is interesting: *nor have i expressed any praise towards the nypd...* I do not confrm nor deny anything you have written... Can you supply this thread with links to news story's to back up your words? (i'm not looking for blog opinions, i wanna see news strories from newspapers nyc or other [village voice does not count]). I'm not discounting any of the alleged illegal activity of the nypd... what do ask is cited material to back your above statement.

HUH?

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:26:01 -0500

edEx, it's interesting you havent addressed the points I've made (#23)......

edEx

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:10:10 -0500

'probable cause' during a protest is stepping out of the fencing (breakiung permit rules) or throwing an object or anything... i was there, perhaps yoiu were too, i saw a lot of unruley people. do i condone police aggression? no. do i condone the law as it presents itself as it happens? yes. "I don't think it means what you think it means." and i would say the same of you about law and the us constitution. : )

anonymass

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:06:41 -0500

Again, you seem to ignore the concept of 'probable cause.' That's sort of important and to paraphrase a great fictional character: "I don't think it means what you think it means."

edEx

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:43:29 -0500

You're lacking READING COMPREHENSION!!! this amuses me. i'm just stating the facts of actual laws—you scream constitution, but when it comes down to brass tacks you believe what you wanna believe. i suggest you read the constitution and familiarize yourself... i never stated any affiliation with any party nor have i expressed any praise towards the nypd. what some officers did illegally or not did not have any relation to my post. these so called gestapo tactics are what was written pre 9/11 for the last few centuries i.e. the us constitution. hmmm...

jj

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:42:17 -0500

EdEx is a flaming faggot! He's a republican loving dick sucking cum guzzler! Go back to the the GOP and the rest of those closet homos!

anonymass

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:11:07 -0500

EdEx, you're not making any cogent points. Your whole post is what a person in those situations should do (according to you). You completely gloss over the person's right to not open his trunk. There has to be probable cause. An honest person who has not committed a crime (especially a bank robbery) will be more than willing to ID themselves and/or answer questions pertaining to where they have been and who they are. Says you. Maybe some people - and I'm one of them - don't appreciate the gestapo tactics used by law enforcement. And yes, I'd push the issue (probably to my own detriment), but I'd get my point across.

HUH?

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:57:44 -0500

edEx, there were many false charges performed after many people were detained, and people were then put under arrest. Literally hundreds of them were *proven* to be fabrications (!) by the police, as court records have shown. Witness evidence and video evidence gave the judges rock-solid proof that the police lied on signed forms about even being in the vicinity of some of their arrestees. One particularly disgusting abuse of power was in the form of an edited video. The prosecution edited out key moments of a surveillance video that would've cleared the defendant. Luckily, someone else had a copy of the unedited footage and submitted it to the judge. The case was immediately dropped, and the prosecution blamed their error on a technician's mishap. *Hundreds* of false signed and approved CHARGES? Something is dead wrong with that. Why don't you have the good sense to acknowledge this?

edEx is an idiot

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:13:44 -0500

det sipo urine - L.O.L.!!!!!

you'dbesurprised

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:08:19 -0500

They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

det sipo urine

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:19:03 -0500

Here's edex. blah blah blah blah blah, I love the NYPD, blah blah blah blah blah, it was your fault for being stupid, blah blah blah blah, well you shouldn't of broken the law, blah blah blah blah, ignorance of the law is no excuse, blah blah blah blah, you do as I say or we the NYPD will jam you up, blah blah blah blah.

edEx

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:14:54 -0500

I read about many protestors not being allowed to see or speak to counsel while they were detained. Many of whom refused to ID themselves. Well, that's where all of the above falls into place. I do not agree with it, I'm not siding with the republicans and the current administration, but law is law as much as it may suck, it's still law.

edEx

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:08:31 -0500

You have a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself. I never said arrested. If you are detained, you do not have a constitutional right to not ID yourself (the right to remain silent is on a communication basis only, not an ID basis). The police can fingerprint you for ID purposes, if necessary. You can be detained (not arrested) without counsel for up to 48 hours. If the police want to keep you longer you then will be arrested, read your rights and then you can request counsel. If you're a material witness you can also be detained. If you're a material witness you cannot plead the fifth. In fact, if you do not speak about said crime you can be indicted for obstruction of justice or if testifying before a grand jury you can be held in contempt of court and held in jail for an indefinite period of time (with counsel). If you do not have ID and you pass yourself off as Joe Smith and your real name is Dave Jones you can be charged with false impersonation (with is whole other ball park). I never said the police have a right to search you while you’re buying milk at the deli (that would be ridiculous)… However, here's an example (with the very small chance that this will ever happen to you, but it has happened): A bank was robbed up the street from your deli and the description of the robber fits your description, you can be ID’d and questioned by the police. If you do not answer their questions, there’s a good chance you will be detained or arrested. An honest person who has not committed a crime (especially a bank robbery) will be more than willing to ID themselves and/or answer questions pertaining to where they have been and who they are. Yes, you can nothing, but why would you if you’re not involved with the robbery? Here’s another example. If there’s a high profile criminal loose, the police set up a road block to question and search every motorist’s car. They ask you to pull over and open your trunk. If you do not pull over or resist, the police will think you have something to hide, they may not arrest you, but you’re making trouble for yourself for no reason.

ID orange nettie

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:08:23 -0500

What? What does ID's have to do with any of this crap? How bout the innocent tourists and just regular people who was "arrested" when a LT or whomever says to round up everyone over there in that ORANGE NETTING. The NYPD and The Mayor broke the law, Many many laws.

adm

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:04:53 -0500

Yet another reason not to vote for Bloomberg for any office. It was a fiasco in 2004, and it's becoming a bigger fiasco (and insult) now. I guess this is what we get for not having any decent Democratic mayoral candidates.

Max

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:37 -0500

And if you are brown and living in Utah, and dont happen to have your ID, you can be arrested at work and taken to an "undisclosed location." http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002144.php

the constitution's ghost

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:02:12 -0500

#11, you are mistaken. Constitutional rights are applied regardless of whether you have ID on your person. Now there are definitely some procedure technicalities based on whether you provide ID, but the police are not allowed to detain people at will based on lack of ID. (Ie: You have a right to remain silent, and not providing ID is a form of silence.) For example, if I left my wallet at home, I haven't left my constitutional rights at home. Sometimes I go down to the deli to pick up some milk and eggs, without my ID. God forbid a cop randomly starts checking IDs and detains people who don't have them. Sounds crazy, but you're telling us that crazy scenarios like that are legal. They're not. And that's the shitty truth.

Benny

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:53:25 -0500

edEx, the constituion makes no such distinction. Someone arrested is entitled to counsel, period. You could have been guilty as sin, and you get a lawyer. And the fact is many of these people were held for 3 days without bein arraigned, which is against the law, the police ignored writs of habeus corupus, which again si illegal. The guilt/innocence of the accused is not even an issue. The police ignored NYC law, NY state law, and violated civil liberties. And now they want to hide behind a shield of economic develeopment and unfounded terrorism fears, sounds definitly like bloomberg is taking after his cohort Bush, scare them and they will obey.

Guy

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:45:20 -0500

To me, it wasn't just about the arrests, it was everything before it and after it too. NYPD and Bloomberg basically treated protesters like crimminals even when they had just started organizing them. Their actions dating back to the 2003 Iraq War protests reflects this attitude.

edEx

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:17:49 -0500

Mike i will agree with you that some officers were douchebags (but as with all arguments about the NYPD not all the cops are bad, it's very small percentage). I got yelled at and threatened for photography... i did it anyway as it's my right and then got lost in a crowd. Sadly, there's no constitutional right that says you're allowed an attorney without ID. So, if you don't have ID and you do not give the police a name, you're going to be denied counsel. Sucks, but it's the shitty truth.

rove's tentacles

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:15 -0500

a central, core belief in conservativism is hatred of freedom. the rnc is simply putting their plan of slowly destroying the constitution into action. In light of events over the years, do you think the problem is the RNC or the NYPD?

Truth on Bloomberg

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:57:28 -0500

Despite the video evidence to the contrary (mentioned in my earlier comment), during the Republican National Convention, Bloomberg said there was "not one shred of evidence" that protesters were locked up longer than usual. Source: Village Voice

Truth on Bloomberg

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:54:18 -0500

Many court cases provided evidence that the police made false statements and arrested many innocent people. Video evidence dismissed over 400 cases. Source: New York Times

mike

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:43:01 -0500

edEx - problem is, most of the people arrested during the RNC did not break the law. It was more the NYPD that broke the law.

warren the great

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:36:06 -0500

why, because i speak the truth? that's another aspect of conservativism: an aversion to honesty.

edEx

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:35:26 -0500

I'm a huge advocate for freedom and civil liberties (and against anything and anyone who wants to take it away for a little bit of bs security), but breaking the law is breaking the law. Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your own actions.

fishtale

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:28:53 -0500

warren- you are a retard. that's all

warren the great

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:21:10 -0500

a central, core belief in conservativism is hatred of freedom. the rnc is simply putting their plan of slowly destroying the constitution into action.

Tim N.

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:54:21 -0500

I used to think that some of the RNC stuff was just overblown - I mean, how obvious do you have to be, crack down on lefties when righties are in town - but the more time goes by, the more you can start to think there's a lot more here than meets the eye. I mean, the NYPD brass still hasn't left the cyclists alone, they roughed up Cindy Sheehan at the UN that resulted in her being convicted on lesser charges... and now this... you get the feeling that at the RNC, to quote Sondheim, "something just broke."

Bob Loblaw

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:14:52 -0500

I could do without any politcal convention here. Too much BS.