I’ve been reading a lot about the police crackdown in St. Paul during the RNC and I honestly don’t know what to think. First of all, I have an inordinate amount of respect for the Police and I think that no matter what one’s response is to the overall police strategy last week, the individual officers did their job and did it well. Moreover, I can’t even begin to express how stupid the supposed “anarchists” were — the only thing they could have possibly been serving is their narcissistic desire for attention, no matter the cost. As has been noted in countless places, however, these doofuses were a very small part of the massive, peaceful protests and marches that took place. And some of the police presence in these situations, like the above image (thank you to a dedicated reader for the image), seemed a bit heavy handed and almost dystopian. I’m still not entirely sure how or why the state has the right to tell anyone where they can or cannot be if they’re being peaceful and they’re on public property. That being said, the scale of the event clearly necessitates crowd control, if only to keep the city running.
Which brings me to my opening point: I don’t know what to think, one way or the other. So, I’ll pose the question for our readers (hopefully some of whom were actually in St. Paul): What do you think?
Loading ...
I believe the Ramsey County Sheriff is going to be out of a job next election. Minnesota Nice does not approve of the Gestapo tactics on display the past week.
The 10,000 peaceful protesters were treated with dignity by the police who respected their right to protest, as they should. I’m glad the anarchists got the hammer, they should all be thrown into jail.
Patrick-
Is there something inherently illegal about being an anarchist? If not, why do you take a draconian position such as you do?
BTW-
A vast majority of those arrested were released without charges.
“Is there something inherently illegal about being an anarchist?”
Is there something inherently illegal about protesting without a permit, moving off approved parade routes, attacking police, smashing vehicles, and destroying public and private property? Yes.
The anarchists are protesting for no reason, they do not represent any belief, they are just losers looking for a good time.
They do a disservice to the real protesters, who have a legitimate cause.
“A vast majority of those arrested were released without charges.”
Those arrested and released without charge had nothing to do with the anarchists.
And I don’t think being arrested and jailed is a “draconian position” when people break the law. If they don’t like how things are run here, they can find somewhere else to live.
For me, a lot of the talk about “anarchists” is a distraction and even a red herring. Patrick, you say: “Those arrested and released without charge had nothing to do with the anarchists.”
Precisely! So let’s talk about THEM, not keep using them as an excuse to justify actions by the county and city police that were way out of proportion to the treat actually represented by the situation.
Some of those “arrested and released without charge” were: pepper-sprayed, shoved to the ground, handcuffed, detained for periods of time ranging from hours to days, had their property taken and not returned, prevented from doing their jobs (medics, press, legal observers, and others) or just plain frightened and treated like criminals, when quite often they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are a siginficant number of cases where people were denied medical treatment.
Literally hundreds of people were treated like this, in addition to those who were maced or shot at with rubber bullets who were NOT detained or arrested.
How do the actions of those you call “anarchists” justify this extraordinary abuse of power? Compare this to a few other situations where there are large masses of people breaking the law, but where the police response was not to suit up in riot gear and crack heards. If I try to go downtown in Minneapolis on any given Friday or Saturday night, I can witness more people breaking the law under the eyes of the police and without being touched, let alone arrested or detained: hordes of drunks staggering down the street, harrassing passers-by, obviously too drunk to drive — yet the jails are not filled with these obnoxious irritating people who clearly have no message, and are preventing me from driving safely home. Seriously, it’s incredible that this is allowed to go on weekend after weekend, but I presume the city wants the taxes from all the alcohol consumed at bars.
Or how about the “hockey riots” in Dinkytown? Yes, people were charged, but the numbers detained were far fewer and the response was to the actual situation.
In other words, I am angered and distressed because the police (and the national guard) were clearly used to intimidate and exert force against many people who were neither criminals nor anarchists. In the words of one journalist who came from out of town to attend the RNC: the Republicans needed an army to throw a party.”
This is wrong.
I agree with Patrick on the anarchist comments. The fact that so many were arrested and released without charged, however, does worry me.
Fifty million bucks worth of hammer chasing a nail to pound.
Not counting the Coast Guard with their .50 cal machine guns down there on the river and the 34th Infantry Division, just back from their second year in Iraq.
A democracy cannot remain a democracy if it becomes an empire. The troops come home and use the same
tactics on the citizens. The citizens, having entrusted their arms and warriors to the republic, have
neither the means nor the will to reclaim their country.
Sarah Palin, the irresponsible and reckless mayor of a town of 7,000 and now governor of a state with fewer than one million people, is touted as having “more executive experience than Obama.” Minnesota has more than five million people, 3.4 million of whom live in the metro. But she’s cute, wears nifty glasses, has television experience, and stirs the faithful.
America never should have been an empire anyway. It was not part of the original plan charted by the Founders. We have been very rich and very powerful for sixty years, having been on the winning side in the last World War. That success was based on a collective effort, actual patriotism and sacrifice that was perceived as being made by just about everyone. But now the super-wealthy have accelerated their acquisition more than ten-fold, leaving their lesser competitors turning around and grabbing more of the pittance previously reserved to the middle and poor classes.
Given the political power given our faith-based fellow citizens who disregard the value of rational thought;
the destruction of our educational system; and our near-universal subservience to our own government, we are well on our way to a future of poverty and serfdom for our children and grandchildren. Unnecessary, wasteful, and pathetic, but there it is.
I was down there 3/4 of the days (after work). I made it to all the major events on every day but Wednesday. So far I would say a lot of what people have said is correct. Considering over 800 people were arrested (more detained) and considering the overall (violent) actions of the crowd, went something like: a few broken windows, a few trash cans dumped over, a few cop cars dented, a few tires slashed, probably no more than a few thousand dollars damage, by what is most likely no more than 20 actual offenders. I would like to offer a comparison:
Protesters/anarchists 800 arrested
vs maybe 20 “possible” criminals
P/A
5-10 broken windows vs
at least 800 + people who no longer believe in the police.
P/A
1 police officer hurt? vs hundreds of protester/journalists/civilians etc seeking medical treatment
P/A
almost no visible weapons vs a thousand armed and heavily armored police
P/A
urine (police fake, but at worst you might need a shower) vs tear gas and mace (burns and stings the eyes nose and throat, (can cause severe allergic reactions)
P/A
loud display of first amendment rights vs (police) more visible display of revoking first amendment rights with violence.
P/A justification:
illegal war, history of oppression,
no health care, war on the poor,
racism, illegal wiretapping,
infiltration by the police,
(the list goes on forever)
vs police justification “unlawful assembly” (even though it was peaceful).
when it comes down to it, one side was shouting and singing, the other was carrying sticks, riding horses and motorcycles and shooting rubber bullets, concussion grenades and tear gas.
Which sounds more oppressive? Which sounds more violent? which seems like a better way to celebrate freedom and democracy?
They say protesters were disrupting the democratic process, but why are the 10,000 people in the xcel center more important than the 10,000 outside? I thought we were all equal?
Do we really want our tax dollars spent this way? Do we really want our country run this way?
First, while you have the right to protest, you do not have the right to destroy private property or disrupt another person’s legitimate activities. I’ve been to the previous three GOP national conventions, twice as delegate, and I can tell you that this convention (which I did not attend) went out of its way to accomodate protesters. The fact that they built a stage to allow people to say whatever they wanted says a lot about this convention just as the fact that having a free stage wasn’t enough for the protesters says a lot about them.
Second, the 10,000 people inside the Xcel Center are more important than the protesters to the extent that they were carrying out the legal process of nominating a candidate for President of the United States. While you have the right to protest, you do not have the right to disrupt a legal proceeding. Some have mentioned the words democracy. It is fundamentally undemocratic to disrupt or otherwise try to stop a political convention or the delegates/alternates, guests, etc. from getting to the convention.
Third, the protesters were given the opportunity to march and demonstrate peacefully along a parade route as well as in the designated staging area. Those who went beyond those areas did so with malice and not only destroyed private property they also assaulted police and others. The plate glass windows, damaged vehicles and other property damaged or destroyed cost private citizens and business owners money to repair or replace. What about their right to private property and to be left alone? Somehow I doubt that any of the protesters have more than two quarters to rub together and those individuals victimied by rioting are going to be out of luck and lighter in the wallet.
I think the convention was more than accomodating and that the police did a good job. The only time people were cleared out was when the protests got out of hand and everyone was told to clear out. Those who didn’t follow the police orders to leave got what was coming to them. The fact that many people didn’t get charged shows that the system worked.
I doubt that any of the protesters have more than two quarters to rub together
There it is. Poor people have no right to free speech or assembly. Simple as that.
I stayed away from both downtowns during the Republican WhoHa… it was a takeover of our cities and our rights by a bunch of outsiders, sold to the Cities as an economic boon… it was a boondoggle at best. I wish we would have had the Democratic Convention… seemed much more civilized than the jackboots the Republicans require. You start by making such a clear delineation between citizen and authority… that riot gear hides faces and makes the cops anonymous. Infiltrating the organizations for a year has me thinking that some of the stupidity was provoked by police informants. Republicans seem to like conflict when they get to stomp on progressives. Right-wing killers and whackjobs get a free ride it seems.
That said, as I watched this I remembered a Tolstoy quote… paraphrase “The difference between revolutionary violence and establishment violence is the difference between cat shit and dog shit.”
It was Kabuki Theater at its best… the radicals disturbed the peace to get the police to over react and screw with the peaceful. This radicalizes the peaceful to start thinking like the radicals and creates support. I thought Minnesotans were smarter than this but I guess I was wrong. It seems to me that once all is said and done our local cops, many are Democrats and Progressives, we on orders from on high. This had the stamp of the Homeland Security and FBI all over it… stupidly.
I think this was a massive fuckup on everybody’s part… Peace and Progressive organizations need to police their own and the government has to back off from trying to intimidate people from exercising their Constitutional Rights to demonstrate.
My thoughts:
1. This is not a political issue. I chuckle when I see the police approach in St. Paul reduced to the wy the “country is run” or the fact that the GOP wants to take away the free speech of the poor. This was not about the GOP or DNC. This was about attracting a major convention to town, and making good on promises that the conventiongoers would be safe.
2. There was no major problem or widespread vandalism. Perhaps that is actually a good outcome? Let’s not use the fact that the St. Paul police protected their city well as a twisted reason why they didn’t need to do anything.
3. There were probably 200 members of congress in that building. Yes, the fact is you need to protect it, just as you protected it in Denver (with an even smaller area for protesters — kudos to St. Paul)
4. Had there been protests with some vandalism and the suspicion the St. Paul Police had (including confiscated plans to kidnap delegates) in a park in Maple Grove, at a Twins game, at a festival in Stillwater, etc., they would have treated it similarly, adjusted for size. You can’t take this stuff lightly.
5. The main question here is did the police act consistenly with their protocols, regardless of if this was to protect a bunch of Republicans? Yes. Heck, if there would have been suspicion that someone was going to attempt to assault the anarchists, then the anarchists would have gotten the same protection. It is about police policy.
But, I have to admit, I hated seeing St. Paul so baracaded. I wanted people to stroll around downtown, enjoy the sights, stop off for a slice of ‘Za at Cossetta’s, etc. I feel badly that St. Paul didn’t get to show off their charm more. Truly.
I was in St. Paul on Mon. (marched peacefully and went home) and Wed. afternoon and saw none of the clashes with the police. I am also undecided about police tactics based on watching news reports. For one thing we don’t know what would have happened with lesser police responce. Would there have been more property destruction and violence?
My impression is most officers showed restaint in tense situations, but in a few cases probably were abusive. Thought the preemptive raids last weekend were conducted with excessive force and thought more respect should have been shown to jounalists and their right to document and report the events.
In general it’s too bad the right to peacefully protest was curtailed, at least in part, by police fear/responce to extreme activists.
I wonder what some of your thoughts would have been after the Boston Tea Party. Go Tories!
I do have to say that those arrested who refused to give their names are a bunch of cowards. If you’re going to protest, then at least own your actions.
It’s never a good idea to let criminals and thugs into your community. You’re probably okay letting anarchists and protesters in but keep the criminals and thugs out. Whichever city is thinking about hosting the next RNC should think about that. The GOP will perhaps have a problem with that, if nobody in the GOP is allowed in.
Richard,
Were you arrested?
I was there everyday inside the convention doing fieldwork and such and on my walks back up to my car (I parked by the Cathedral and walked down), I saw legions of national guard. And you know what, good. I think all of it was completely justified. You dont violent attack property and police officers at a NATIONAL SECURITY EVENT and not expect to get the hammer. This is top security with hundreds of incredibly important politicians and party figures inside. If it were the Beanie Baby convention, the police would’ve gone to far. Nope, they got what they deserved and endangered the innocent bystanders around them in the process.
I actually agree with DantheMan for the most part. My disagreement with his position is that it seems as though the police showings of force were a bit over the top at times. There’s no doubt that anyone breaking the law has it coming, but most reports I saw showed pretty tame marching/protesting.
I also agree with South Metro Dem’s statement: “My impression is most officers showed restaint in tense situations, but in a few cases probably were abusive. Thought the preemptive raids last weekend were conducted with excessive force and thought more respect should have been shown to jounalists and their right to document and report the events.” That seems about right.
Overall I think the real problem is that situations like this where the police overplay their hands really deteriorates the amiable light citizens should see the police in. They’re here to protect us, they’re in our corner, but when I see them all decked out in black riot gear, blasting mace at unarmed protesters it really erodes that public protector image. This may sound a bit ridiculous, but the police really do need to think about public image in these situations — to what extent does overreaching affect public trust in such a way that it prevents them from being effective in the future? Obviously safety is the first priority, but it would be nice if the force matched the occasion and circumstance instead of merely a preplanned “worst possible case” scenario that doesn’t moderate with the crowd.
amuseinc,
I’m surprised you weren’t among the protesters. You know, the difference between the GOP and Dem conventions is that Republicans don’t protest against the other side for the most part. We have better things to do than disrupt convention-goers or scream profanities at Obama’s motorcade as it whirls by at 70 mph. The reason the Democratic convention wasn’t as wild as the GOP convention was because the rioters are allied with your party. I don’t know how proud of that I’d be.
I do agree with your comment that I’m not sure how big of an economic benefit it is for a city to host a convention. It does fill up a lot of the hotels and it gives many of the downtown caterers and restaurants business. But it also disrupts business for a lot of other people who aren’t part of the convention and in St. Paul’s case made for a lot of innocent people and businesses to have their property wrecked by the people who are allied with your constituency. If progressives and peace marchers act this way, amuseinc, I don’t think I’d advertise it. To be fair, I don’t think the majority of the people arrested were peace marchers but rather anarchists and other left wing fringe types.
Laughing at anonymous’ post about being brave enough to give your name.
This twaddle about ‘anarchists’ is silly. Are we thinking that ONLY anarchists broke the law? Which ones were ‘anarchists’? Do they carry cards?
lojasmo,
I hope for your sake that the anarchists were the ones breaking windows, smashing cars, throwing urine, lighting fires and mobbing the police. If the peace protesters were engaging in those activities, I’d reconsider my definition of peace. And I think anyone with half a brain would run like hell if they were in the middle of a group of people doing those things - especially when the cops come out and tell people to scatter. It’s common sense to think you’ll get arrested when everyone around you is rioting.
Matt,
I appreciate your comments and pretty much agree with them. I take exception over a few points. As I indicated, I’ve been to three of these things and a delegate to two of them. This convention went out of its way to accomodate the protesters. Hell, not only did they allow the typical marches, etc. they even built a stage for people to stand on and demonstrate around. There were people who abused their right to free speech by interfering with the rights of others to either participate in their own speech or simply be left alone. One’s free speech only goes as far as another’s right to be left alone. It’s kind of like shouting fire in a crowded theater. I have no doubt that the police probably were abusive toward a few people. That happens every day of the week and not just against peace activists. By and large the police did their job and did it well. Anyone who went to the convention with the intent to disrupt, create mayhem or be violent got pretty much what they deserved — especially those who wanted to kidnap delegates. As I said before, the people who were in the middle of those who were breaking windows or otherwise rioting were stupid. They got arrested even if they didn’t participate in the riot. But that’s the beauty of our system. Most won’t be charged and those who are will have the chance to plead their case.
Please don’t say that a person’s window (private property) is worth more than a person’s well being… even if that person is a “criminal.” Corrupt societies force people into the name and role of “criminal” when those people have not been given the proper support (food, shelter, security) or the ability to express themselves(rights). All those founding fathers were criminals (their violent actions killed people). Why should the guy who breaks a window (not violent towards people) be treated with any less respect when he is trying to change the system that actively hurts, or oppresses others?
Furthermore, why is a president or congress person given more respect and security when their actions kill thousands (millions) vs a protester who breaks a window?
If its a matter of elections, well we all know that our elections have been rigged, we all know that the rich and powerful people are most often elected, and we all know that just because someone is elected to an office doesn’t mean they don’t break the law just like everyone else. Name a president or congress person who isn’t corrupt or a criminal and I will name 5 who are.
So why are they more important?
They are our representatives. If they won’t talk to us, throw a brick threw the window that separates you.
through not threw
The police presence seemed kind of fascist, but that’s about it. No one got killed. No one got seriously hurt. No one dumped a bucked of piss on me when I had to go downtown for work. I am sure the city/county will be paying out some money for wrongful arrests, but it sounds like the courts got people processed quickly, so even that won’t be too big a deal. The peaceful protesters weren’t allowed too close, but its not like the convention was outside and the delegates could see or hear the protesters. Whatever, lets move on.
I don’t know why the police were there except to intimidate and protect the RNC perimeter. It was not to protect free speech or civil protest. I have no problem with the RNC — without them we would have a one-party state and that’s no good. It’s pointless to “be against the RNC.” But these cops and the city’s policy on protesting was not something to be proud of. Now it is okay to say you have free speech at this place at this time, but after that you get a knee in the neck while being cuffed. I’m not talking about the anarchists (were they plants?), I’m talking about people who are concerned for their country and want to be heard by some of the people who run the country.
Mike Haggar / Anon
For as along as we’ve had laws in this country, we’ve always protected through law a person’s property and physical well-being. We have hardly distinguished between the two. It is a slippery slope when property is being abused and battered.
If a protester must use force of any kind to get their message across, they are stepping over the line. Not my line, not a fascist line, but the one we’ve all agreed to.
James,
Yeah, I heard that the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateralist Commission and the Illuminati were all under orders by George W. Bush to send anarchists to the RNC in St. Paul. Give me a break. The anarchists were there to do exactly what they did, which is why the St. Paul police were there to protect the city. Don’t make more of it than it is. Everybody had free speech if they only did what they were supposed to do: stay peaceful and orderly and remain in the designated staging/parading areas. What’s wrong with that?
@ Chris.
I blame the republican agitators. They were obviously the ones perpetrating the violence. We should lock them all up and castrate them.
best comment in this thread:
“It was Kabuki Theater at its best… the radicals disturbed the peace to get the police to over react and screw with the peaceful. This radicalizes the peaceful to start thinking like the radicals and creates support. I thought Minnesotans were smarter than this but I guess I was wrong. It seems to me that once all is said and done our local cops, many are Democrats and Progressives, we on orders from on high. This had the stamp of the Homeland Security and FBI all over it… stupidly.” - amuseinc
the “anarchists” drove the entire street show. everybody else was in reaction mode. until the local authorities recognize they’re being gamed, and that cages and massive force are counterproductive, they will continue to lose the war for minds to both the radicals, on the side of expanding radicalization, and to the higher authorities, on the side of the police state. one needs only to note the less observant posts on this thread to see the success of these efforts to catalyze polarization
As for plants: at one protest I saw the police rush in to arrest a guy, they pulled him back beyond their line. This seemed weird as the police were already in the process of arresting over 50 peaceful protesters. Two minutes later someone in the crowd shouted to the crowd, “lets go back the other way!” as the crowd left, the 50 or so people who remained got to watch as the people who were pulled out from the crowd were placed into squad cars separate from the other protesters who were being arrested. I’m not entirely sure that the people telling the crowd “to go back the other way” were cops, but I thought it was pretty interesting timing, considering the events that took place just after they left.
Legal advisers in the crowd, also reported seeing a number of undercover police in the crowds making reports to police.
At one point during the march, many people who wanted to leave were not allowed to by the police who were guarding the marching route. three young people ran up to a guard whispered something to them and were allowed to go. Every person who asked afterward was told,”those are undercover police” by the guard.
DantheMan, as to your comment. Its true, every since the founding of this country, we have protected property rights. Shay’s rebellion during the foundation period being a great example and also the best/first example of where this country went wrong.
This all flies in the face of the founders who at their first act of nonviolent civil disobedience had a protest where civilians were shot, and followed that up with the “boston tea party” where they willfully and purposely damaged property in order to show that property shouldn’t be valued over life and liberty.
Call me a dick for believing in something… our country never had the courage to pull off.
Many continue to assert, as if it were a fact, that the majority of those arrested were anarchists. This is simply not true, even if you only read the paper you’d know that. Very few of the participants or those arrested could be called anarchists or self-identified as such. The vast majority of those arrested (and again, there were many who were “detained” without actually being arrested) were neither criminals, nor anarchists, nor “poor”. There were not hooligans, they did not break the law. They were people doing their jobs: reporting the news, taking pictures, documenting the events for legal organizations, lawyers, people on their way to and from work, people who lived in the area. Many were people who attended the peaceful protest but were boxed in and subject to mass arrest. Yet the majority of commenters here persist in talking about anyone arrested as if they were de facto criminals, without any evidence that this is the case. To me, this shows the power of propaganda; repeat a lie often enough and people accept it as true.
If so many of the people arrested had committed crimes, they would not have been released without charges, yet that is the case for the majority! How can you seriously use the same tired cliches when there are so many eyewitness accounts, film, and reports that give you information that contradicts this line? Don’t assume that because YOU didn’t see something happen, that it didn’t happen. That’s the whole point of this citizen journalist stuff, isn’t it? to have multiple sources of information, sift through them, and make up your own mind, instead of mindlessly repeating cliches?
If you want to debate priorities, that’s one thing. But get your facts straight first.