« Newer | Older »

December 22, 2005

Undercover police

I'm not much of an activist, but I occasionally attend Times Up events. At one event, I saw the effects of undercover policing first-hand.


www.times-up.org

The NYTimes just ran this article: New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Ralies, by Jim Dwyer, which made me think back to my experience...



I was at a party at the Times Up space on Houston, standing outside getting some fresh air. A chap was standing near me holding a bottle of beer, calmly chatting to his friends.

Then someone came out from inside the Times Out space, said something I couldn't quite hear to the beer guy, and knocked the bottle of beer out of his hand onto the floor.

The beer man was quite surprised at this. He raised his arms, saying something like "what the f...". The person who'd separated him from his beer immediately grabbed him by his shirt, body-slammed him over the bonnet of a nearby car, twisted his arm behind his back, produced a police badge and handcuffs, and said "your under arrest". The assailant was an undercover officer, and the charge, apparently, was illegal drinking outdoors followed by resisting arrest.

These actions caused quite a stir in the crowd standing nearby, who were surprised by the speed and forcefulness of the arrest. Several people started shouting, the undercover officer shouted back and pushed a one or two people away from the beer guy, who was kneeling on the ground. Within minutes there were dozens of police, several police vans, more arrests, and the whole party was shut down.

Unfortunately, it all happened so fast that I didn't have time to photograph the event or even memorize the faces of the people involved.

In my opinion, the style of the arrest and the fact that the officer was undercover were instrumental in the events that followed. If the officer had been wearing a uniform, I think the whole event would have played out differently - the man drinking outside would have been more respectful, and the police officer would probably have acted differently too.

Federal judge Charles Haight granted New York City's request to conduct undercover surveillance,
ruling that the cost to the First Amendment was outweighed by the dangers of terrorism.

Interestingly, the law making outdoor drinking illegal is a leftover of the probitition era. Presumably the judges back then made a similar argument, ruling that the cost to the First Amendment was outweighed by the dangers of alcohol.

Comments


Comments are temporarily disabled. Go to my feedback page to send me comments.